# "Buy-to-let property supremo shuts door on housing benefit tenants"



## stethoscope (Jan 4, 2014)

Cuts to housing benefit, people being uprooted by HB and Bedroom tax, barely any social housing provision, and 'buy to let' private landlords sticking the boot in...

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants



> *Buy-to-let property supremo shuts door on housing benefit tenants*
> 
> One of Britain's best-known landlords has issued eviction notices to every tenant who is on welfare, and told letting agents that he will not accept any more applicants who need housing benefit.
> 
> ...



I fucking despair


----------



## likesfish (Jan 4, 2014)

Universal credit if it comes in is really going to screw any benefit claiment


----------



## existentialist (Jan 4, 2014)

steph said:


> Cuts to housing benefit, people being uprooted by HB and Bedroom tax, barely any social housing provision, and 'buy to let' private landlords sticking the boot in...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants
> 
> ...


At least it's another nail in the coffin of the pretence that there is anything about our social housing or benefits (I refuse to use the weasel word "welfare") system that is about anything other than venality and graspingness.

And when every proto-Rachmann has done likewise, and the DWP's glib facade has nothing left to support it, they *will* be exposed for what they are.

But a lot of people are going to have suffered grievously and unnecessarily before that happens, and that is extremely sad.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 4, 2014)

Is he even evicting the ones that are not in arrears.
Yes the universal credit will make anyone in that situation (ie people claiming tax credits now and paying the rent out of that) vulnerable to this. But I did think that at present the landlord did not have to know if someone was on HB and the tenant could pay it directly?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jan 4, 2014)

I saw this earlier on the Guardian's website  Scum, them and the government, absolute scum


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)




----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 4, 2014)

What kind of cunt behaves like this ffs.  Scum.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 4, 2014)

"Welfare". Fuck off, it's social security.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 4, 2014)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

Landlords are notable for being one of the few types of capitalist who can treat their customers as badly as they like and still print money. There are no online reviews for landlords, no real way to harm the reputation of a landlord who mistreats tennants, no market forces providing any incentive for a landlord to behave like anything other than a complete arsehole.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 4, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> What kind of cunt behaves like this ffs.  Scum.







"Greed is good".

There are still people out there who genuinely seem to believe that


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

And to think they call people on benefits 'parasites' ffs


----------



## existentialist (Jan 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Landlords are notable for being one of the few types of capitalist who can treat their customers as badly as they like and still print money. There are no online reviews for landlords, no real way to harm the reputation of a landlord who mistreats tennants, no market forces providing any incentive for a landlord to behave like anything other than a complete arsehole.


Market forces, innit? We all need somewhere to live, and traditionally it's been landlords who have provided the places to live for those without the resources to buy their own.

It's pretty much inevitable that it's going to be a marketplace with a rather more elevated level of cuntitude than average.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

existentialist said:


> There are still people out there who genuinely seem to believe that



Why wouldn't they? Our whole society is based on that very idea.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why wouldn't they? Our whole society is based on that very idea.


Well, it's a special case. Greed is good...for the greedy, and in a society which rewards only greed.

My dream is of a society in which, somehow, the market dominance of greedy, venal people who don't care about anything except themselves is challenged. It's probably an unrealistic dream...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Market forces, innit? We all need somewhere to live, and traditionally it's been landlords who have provided the places to live for those without the resources to buy their own.



It's also landlords who, by their very existence, create the situation whereby ordinary people are unable to buy homes.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

existentialist said:


> My dream is of a society in which, somehow, the market dominance of greedy, venal people who don't care about anything except themselves is challenged. It's probably an unrealistic dream...



Wherever there's a market, greed will win. The only way to change this is to get rid of the market, of the very idea of labour and resources and products all being equivalent and interchangeable, to get rid of the right to have more of anything than everybody else.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Wherever there's a market, greed will win. The only way to change this is to get rid of the market, of the very idea of labour and resources and products all being equivalent and interchangeable, to get rid of the right to have more of anything than everybody else.


Yes, though I do think that is hopelessly unrealistic: people's minds just don't work that way.


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 4, 2014)

He says that none of his working tenants are in arrears and so he is going to stop those who need housing benefit, but aren't most housing benefit claimants in work? Argument doesn't even make sense.

He goes on the list anyway.


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 4, 2014)

Yep, 1.27 million unemployed; 5 million housing benefit claimants.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 4, 2014)

More scumbags here;
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/28/new-class-landlords-profiting-generation-rent

Former right-to-buy council homes have provided rich pickings for investors. It has emerged that Charles Gow, the son of Ian Gow, the Tory minister and Thatcher aide during the peak years of the right-to-buy boom, owns at least 40 ex-council properties.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 4, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Yep, 1.27 million unemployed; 5 million housing benefit claimants.


I don't think that's quite right as a lot of HB is pensioners.A not insubstantial percentage of low paid workers do claim HB though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 4, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> Is he even evicting the ones that are not in arrears.
> Yes the universal credit will make anyone in that situation (ie people claiming tax credits now and paying the rent out of that) vulnerable to this. But I did think that at present the landlord did not have to know if someone was on HB and the tenant could pay it directly?


I would have thought that too - there are some instances where HB gets paid straight to the landlord but it's not standard - but if there's a difference in rental insurance, then perhaps there is a clause in their contracts that says they have to disclose whether they are on HB.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 4, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I would have thought that too - there are some instances where HB gets paid straight to the landlord but it's not standard - but if there's a difference in rental insurance, then perhaps there is a clause in their contracts that says they have to disclose whether they are on HB.


My friend managed to talk round a landlord who didn't want DSS by taking a bank statement and showing she had the money to cover the rent upfront before the DSS sent a payment to her, she got the place.

ETA The no insurance thing to DSS sucks also.




you don't see this very often tho!


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 4, 2014)

peterkro said:


> I don't think that's quite right as a lot of HB is pensioners.A not insubstantial percentage of low paid workers do claim HB though.


You're right. 

This article say that the number of working HB claimants has increased by 417,830 which is 86%, and that makes the total 971,697. The article was in October 2012 and says that the numbers of in-work claimants is increasing by 10,000 a month. Given 15 months since that article, and assuming the rate hasn't changed (it may be worse now), then that's 1.1m - practically the same number of people unemployed.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 4, 2014)

Plenty of cuntish stuff about this couple in other contexts too - e.g. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_express/news/plumber-row-5572/ where they sued a gas safety engineer because he said one of their properties was dangerous after an inspection - they claimed it was his fault they couldn't rent it! The case didn't succeed but they've apparently not paid up.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 4, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> My friend managed to talk round a landlord who didn't want DSS by taking a bank statement and showing she had the money to cover the rent upfront before the DSS sent a payment to her, she got the place.


If I went onto HB - which I nearly did last year, and I'm in work - I just wouldn't tell the landlord. But I'm a relatively long term tenant, and my contract dates from a slightly saner time. Some of the stuff I read here and elsewhere about what renters have to go through nowadays really shocks me.


----------



## agricola (Jan 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's also landlords who, by their very existence, create the situation whereby ordinary people are unable to buy homes.



The likes of him especially.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

agricola said:


> The likes of him especially.



Well yeah. God knows why anyone thinks it's acceptable for two people to own a thousand houses. I thought wealth was supposed to come from hard graft and enterprise and all that bollocks?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

dp


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> ETA The no insurance thing to DSS sucks also.



I would think that someone with 1000 rental properties would probably have enough cash lying around to cover the occasional late rent cheque. But I guess the whole thing with rent guarantee insurance and letting agencies etc is to allow landlords to make money without ever actually doing a damn thing themselves.


----------



## agricola (Jan 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I thought wealth was supposed to come from someone elses hard graft and enterprise and all that bollocks?



fixed


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

agricola said:


> fixed



Oh yeah I remember now.


----------



## Lorca (Jan 4, 2014)

This is also presumably gonna be a nightmare for the Local Authority as well, when they get 200 Homeless Applications next week, at least some of which will have to be accepted.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would think that someone with 1000 rental properties would probably have enough cash lying around to cover the occasional late rent cheque. But I guess the whole thing with rent guarantee insurance and letting agencies etc is to allow landlords to make money without ever actually doing a damn thing themselves.


You know, if he's operating a thousand properties, he's a cunt to himself if he's paying insurance premiums to guarantee his rental income - assuming he's managing his rent book properly, he should be, effectively, self-insuring.

My bet is that he doesn't even HAVE rental insurance, and that claiming he does is just another attempt to legitimise his shitehawk business methods.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 4, 2014)

Lorca said:


> This is also presumably gonna be a nightmare for the Local Authority as well, when they get 200 Homeless Applications next week, at least some of which will have to be accepted.


That's going to be the area to watch, yes. Almost undoubtedly, what will happen is that the local authority will attempt to shunt such tenants out-of-county, perhaps to areas where they think there will be less rapacious landlords. But then pretty soon those landlords, too, will be happily cherrypicking their tenants, and there won't be anywhere for LAs to offload their homeless.

Short of the government managing to pass legislation to relieve LAs of responsibility for homeless people - and I wouldn't rule out an attempt to do that - that's going to create a problem which someone is going to *have* to fix.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 4, 2014)

existentialist said:


> You know, if he's operating a thousand properties, he's a cunt to himself if he's paying insurance premiums to guarantee his rental income - assuming he's managing his rent book properly, he should be, effectively, self-insuring.
> 
> My bet is that he doesn't even HAVE rental insurance, and that claiming he does is just another attempt to legitimise his shitehawk business methods.


Plus apparently all his employed tenants always pay up on time and it's only the feckless single mothers who are in arrears. So he wouldn't need insurance would he?

There are big slices of bullshit involved in everything he says tbh, though the one thing that does come through very clearly is that he is a huge cunt.


----------



## xenon (Jan 4, 2014)

He should be thrown off a bridge and his properties commandeered.

So if the contracts say you must declaire you're on HB and scum like this won't rent to HB tenants, he's liable to find himself renting to a lot of short term, prepared far as possible, to move on a whim, don't-give-a-fuck about the state of the place. (i.e. if you knew you could be evicted for lying or not declaring should you need to claim HB at some point.) How to get round the deposit situation though.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 4, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Plus apparently all his employed tenants always pay up on time and it's only the feckless single mothers who are in arrears. So he wouldn't need insurance would he?


And there's a thing.

I can well believe that HB tenants might be a _little_ less reliable on account of the legendary fucked-upness of local authorities' management of HB, not to mention the less than helpful interventions of the DWP.

And I can well believe that - as I was when I was renting - most private tenants are quite careful to make sure that they stay on top of the rent.

But I find the very stark contrast between the fecklessness of his HB tenants vs the almost-too-good-to-be-true conscientiousness of his private ones also a little bit too good to be true. In fact, I don't really believe it.

I wonder what point he's _really_ trying to make?



FridgeMagnet said:


> There are big slices of bullshit involved in everything he says tbh, though the one thing that does come through very clearly is that he is a huge cunt.


Yes, especially given the other background - like the plumber stuff - that's starting to emerge about him...


----------



## xenon (Jan 4, 2014)

He's just trying to reaffirm he's a cunt of the first water. 

Eastern Europian immigrants.
Single mothers.
Bennefits.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 4, 2014)

Don't throw him off a bridge though, I don't want that cunt in my water supply.

Unless it's a railway bridge.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 4, 2014)

So furious today about this article and this one about the teenage single mothers being evicted from a LA hostel in Stratford that I almost can't think. How is this legal? How can scum rat fucks like that landlord be allowed to accumulate 200 tenants on benefits and then just say 'no fuck you, you can get to fuck because I'm not making enough money from you' like this? How can a LA just wash its hands of vulnerable young people who desperately need help, throwing them to the mercies of this fucker and his ilk? How is it not blatant sex discrimination given the proportion of housing benefit claimants who are single mothers, and therefore fucking illegal? Why is no-one helping these people? Not a fucking PEEP from Labour about it.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 4, 2014)

Labour have now even stopped throwing out the meagrest of crumbs to persuadables like me. Not socialist, not social democratic, not even neo-liberal with social democratic icing. Poor bashing, anti-immigrant and capitalist. It's not good enough.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 4, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> Is he even evicting the ones that are not in arrears.


is he allowed to?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> is he allowed to?



Assuming they are on 'assured shorthold tenancy' terms (which they are likely unless they moved in a heck of a long time ago) then the landlord can serve notice to end a tenancy at any time once the initial period (usually 6 months) of a tenancy is up.

The landlord does not need to give a reason, nor is there any need to allege / prove that the tenant has done anything wrong.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 4, 2014)

This is at a time when local authorities are putting pressure on homeless people to seek prvate accomadation via deposit schemes and deals with estate agents (even if they are entitled to LA housing). Local authorities not allowed to build new homes, and huge shortage of homes - they are already sending homeless people hundred of miles, to where social housing is available - to areas without employment or hope. 

Fewer and fewer people can afford buy - even 'affordable' or part ownership. More and more market pressure can only fuel private rent increases. 

More buy-to-let mortgages and insurance companies refuse to accept if tenants on benefits. Nearly all private tenants are assure shorthold tenancy with no long term security. Swine like this landlord can do what they like. Hope his new tenants default on him.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 4, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> <snip>
> 
> Hope his new tenants default on him.



And piss on the carpet.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 4, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> He says that none of his working tenants are in arrears and so he is going to stop those who need housing benefit, but aren't most housing benefit claimants in work? Argument doesn't even make sense.
> 
> He goes on the list anyway.


I thought also, at present, HB went directly to the landlord. How can people be in arrears?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 4, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> And piss on the carpet.


 no theres no excuse for pissing on the carpet - he's probably the sort of landlord who doesn't pay for good cleaners - and some other poor tenant will be thinking why can't I get rid of that smell. No hit him where it hurts - in his wallet.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I thought also, at present, HB went directly to the landlord. How can people be in arrears?


Thought that was all changing with new benefits?


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 4, 2014)

The man is obviously quite ruthless. As a landlord, that's unsurprising if no less forgivable. But it demonstrates the unworkability of the government's attempts to rearrange the benefits system. An idiot in a hurry would be aware that no good would come of Tory modifications to any sort of welfare, but this makes it utterly apparent.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I thought also, at present, HB went directly to the landlord. How can people be in arrears?



Nah, if you're in a private let it's not even called HB anymore it's Local Housing Allowance and it's paid to the tenant who then has to pay it to the landlord. Unless you tell the benefit dept that you've got a gambling problem or somesuch & can't be trusted with money. Then you can get it to go straight to the landlord.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 4, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> no theres no excuse for pissing on the carpet - he's probably the sort of landlord who doesn't pay for good cleaners - and some other poor tenant will be thinking why can't I get rid of that smell. No hit him where it hurts - in his wallet.



Fair enough. Didn't think of that.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I thought also, at present, HB went directly to the landlord. How can people be in arrears?


Bedroom tax, caps on benefits, mistakes meaning no payment when expected, backpayments taking weeks to sort out - basically things outside the claimant's control which they are vilified for.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 4, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Local authorities not allowed to build new homes, and huge shortage of homes - they are already sending homeless people hundred of miles, to where social housing is available - to areas without employment or hope.



Agree with rest of your post.

Local Authorities are now allowed to borrow to build housing. Some in London are doing this. LAs can borrow at lower rates than private buyers can. 

Islington Council 

Lambeth Council


----------



## Greebo (Jan 4, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> And piss on the carpet.


Dampening the carpet and then sowing it with cress would be far more satisfying, not very expensive to do, but quite expensive to fix.  

Not that I'd recommend this unless the landlord was so bad that you're certain they'll hold onto your deposit anyway.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 4, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Agree with rest of your post.
> 
> Local Authorities are now allowed to borrow to build housing. Some in London are doing this. LAs can borrow at lower rates than private buyers can.
> 
> ...



thanks - thought they weren't allow to spend the receipts from selling off council houses into building new ones ( someone who worked at Lambeth years ago told me that) was that not true? or has it changed?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 4, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Thought that was all changing with new benefits?


as i understand it, Universal Credit will go direct to the head of a household once a month and he has to budget and spend accordingly (and wisely). 

This is because Iain Duncan Sauron wants UC to be like receiving a monthly wage (just not in size).


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> as i understand it, Universal Credit will go direct to the head of a household once a month and he has to budget and spend accordingly (and wisely).
> 
> This is because Iain Duncan Sauron wants UC to be like receiving a monthly wage (just not in size).



He?  is it.   

Whole fucking thing's a farce.  Why is he publicising this instead of just quietly giving them all notice?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 4, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Dampening the carpet and then sowing it with cress would be far more satisfying, not very expensive to do, but quite expensive to fix.
> 
> Not that I'd recommend this unless the landlord was so bad that you're certain they'll hold onto your deposit anyway.



Although the obvious thing I hope happens is that the boiler, all the pipes and even the wires in the walls get ripped out. That costs thousands to sort out. And until it's sorted the flat/house is unlettable.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well yeah. God knows why anyone thinks it's acceptable for two people to own a thousand houses.



I expect everything is mortgaged to the hilt, and he has to have the rental insurance to satisfy the mortgage company..


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 4, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> thanks - thought they weren't allow to spend the receipts from selling off council houses into building new ones ( someone who worked at Lambeth years ago told me that) was that not true? or has it changed?



I do not understand all the changes. But Councils housing is now changed to "Self Financing" . Instead of rent money from council housing going to central government and Councils get to keep it. A calculation was done for each Council about its historic debt. 

Council get to keep some of the receipts from Council house sales. How they spend it is circumscribed.

Example here from Swindon.



> Under the new Housing Finance system (‘self-financing’) we were supposed to have bought ourselves out of the old system by making a contribution to the national housing debt (the £138.6 million ‘debt’ which was imposed on Swindon). _Yet the government dictat means that the Council is barred from building Council homes with Council rents from RTB receipts_. The government insists that Councils can only use receipts to build homes with its ‘affordable rent‘[1]  (i.e. up to 80% of private market rents). It cannot even use all the receipts on each home. It’s only allowed to use them for a maximum of 30% of the cost of each home built. So to use the £450,000 in a house building programme it would have to find the other 70% (£1,050,000) from its own resources or by borrowing.
> 
> Some Councils have refused to accept these conditions because they know that ‘affordable rent’ is in reality unaffordable for many people and because they will have to use scarce resources to build a small number of homes with rents which are not affordable.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 4, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I expect everything is mortgaged to the hilt, and he has to have the rental insurance to satisfy the mortgage company..



Rental insurance isn't compulsory. The mortgage company has the security of reposessing the property - tenant or no


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 4, 2014)

steph said:


> Cuts to housing benefit, people being uprooted by HB and Bedroom tax, barely any social housing provision, and 'buy to let' private landlords sticking the boot in...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants
> 
> ...


don't despair, go round and burn the cunt's house down.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 4, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I do not understand all the changes. But Councils housing is now changed to "Self Financing" . Instead of rent money from council housing going to central government and Councils get to keep it. A calculation was done for each Council about its historic debt.
> 
> Council get to keep some of the receipts from Council house sales. How they spend it is circumscribed.
> 
> Example here from Swindon.



No wonder councils aren't building new homes.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 4, 2014)

Subhuman scum to be liquidated.


----------



## maomao (Jan 4, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> Whole fucking thing's a farce.  Why is he publicising this instead of just quietly giving them all notice?



Cause he's a puffed up little shitmuncher who's enjoyed the attention he's had in the press before and thinks he can make some sort of point about people on benefits by doing this. Ignoring the fact that it's subhuman scum like himself who've benefited more than anyone from the benefits system that fuckstains like him and his cunt of a wife are always moaning about.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 4, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Subhuman scum to be liquidated.



Has he had himself cloned so he can marry himself?


----------



## maomao (Jan 4, 2014)

They took a central heating engineer to court for declaring a flue unsafe. That 'sense of entitlement' that the papers and telly are always on about, that's that right there that is.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 4, 2014)

maomao said:


> Cause he's a puffed up little shitmuncher who's enjoyed the attention he's had in the press before and thinks he can make some sort of point about people on benefits by doing this. Ignoring the fact that it's subhuman scum like himself who've benefited more than anyone from the benefits system that fuckstains like him and his cunt of a wife are always moaning about.



Ah, yes.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 4, 2014)

What a nice couple of Landlords.

Good example of how Capitalism really works. They do not produce anything of use. They do not build houses for example. The Daily Mail has glowing piece about them where they explain how they do it.  They think its good that there is a shortage of housing according to DM article. Its part of there business plan that the shortage of housing will remain. They are not in the business of supplying a need. Housing is just the commodity they have chosen to make money out of money. They unwittingly show how they are part of the problem not the solution. 

And yes the are smug bastards.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 4, 2014)

Here's their wiki page. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergus_and_Judith_Wilson

Strangely it was okay for them to be in mortgage arrears to the tune of £350k.

They look like Edward and Tubbs off The League of Gentlemen.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 4, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Dampening the carpet and then sowing it with cress would be far more satisfying, not very expensive to do, but quite expensive to fix.
> 
> Not that I'd recommend this unless the landlord was so bad that you're certain they'll hold onto your deposit anyway.


Perhaps those facing eviction at the hands of these greedy old cunt could squat and force him to piss his money down the drain hiring the Mitchells to turf them out.

Bleed this old fucker, bleed him like medieval medicine.


----------



## maomao (Jan 4, 2014)

Last time they were in the Mail, two of my colleagues, one living in expensive private rented accommodation and the other who lives with his parents in his 30s were filled with admiration for this pair of scumbags. I just can't comprehend how we've twisted our society to the point where people applaud their own destruction like that.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 4, 2014)

> Also in 2008, Fergus Wilson was found guilty of using a mobile phone while driving and fined £565 and had his licence endorsed with three points. He had pleaded not guilty and claimed that he had been singing into a drinks carton that he was holding to the side of his head.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 4, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> He?  is it.
> 
> Whole fucking thing's a farce.  Why is he publicising this instead of just quietly giving them all notice?


If Labour had an ounce of wit they could have ousted IDS by now. All they had to do was carefully promise to scrap UC. They could easily argue their case as IDS has pissed away billions on this vanity nonsense and as a responsible government (blah di blah) they couldn't continue with it. We all know it's not even going to be ready in 2017 never mind last October. This would have neutered him and sent him intoa tailspin, but I guess it's too much to expect this from Rachel Reeves and Ed Merelybland.

Anyway. It will never work. The can is continually being kicked down the road. millions pissed away on an IT system that won't work and a system that wants people to submit information constantly (if self employed for example) and will demand that anyone on it, regardless of how many hours they might work, submit themselves to the JC regime or lose their beneift entirely. Never mind if the head of the household is a wifebeater or a cunt.

Somewhat off topic, but never mind.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 4, 2014)

I meant the head of the household being a he!  Who decides who is head of the household and what about some households I've heard about where there is no he?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2014)

I don't understand why it's legal to refuse HB tenants.


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I don't understand why it's legal to refuse HB tenants.


I don't mean to defend landlords, but often the insurance prohibits you renting to HB claimants, so it's not even in their control.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2014)

TIL


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> as i understand it, *Universal Credit will go direct to the head of a household once a month and he has to budget and spend accordingly (and wisely)*.
> 
> This is because Iain Duncan Sauron wants UC to be like receiving a monthly wage (just not in size).


The head of a household is often a woman, such as in single mother-led households. In this day and age do you really still think the head of a household can only be a man?


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 4, 2014)

eta: this was to J Ed

The same is true for certain mortgages, too, I believe.


----------



## maomao (Jan 4, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> The head of a household is often a woman, such as in single mother-led households. In this day and age do you really still think the head of a household can only be a man?


Surely it's a question of an outdated writing style rather than a firmly held belief that households are or should be run by men.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 4, 2014)

maomao said:


> Surely it's a question of an outdated writing style rather than a firmly held belief that households are or should be run by men.


I hope it's just writing style.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 4, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I don't mean to defend landlords, but often the insurance prohibits you renting to HB claimants, so it's not even in their control.



This is correct. I got refused insurance when they learned that my tenant was on HB. I reinsured elsewhere but at a higher rate.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 4, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> The head of a household is often a woman, such as in single mother-led households. In this day and age do you really still think the head of a household can only be a man?


Of course not. 
That wasn't my point at all. The problem is that in those households where the head - the person that will receive UC - is, for example, abusive and controlling.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Of course not.
> That wasn't my point at all. The problem is that in those households where the head - the person that will receive UC - is, for example, abusive and controlling.


Your post didn't say that though.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 4, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Your post didn't say that though.



I have no issue with the gender of anyone running a household, or anyone at all.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 4, 2014)

emanymton said:


>


Was it too orangey for crows?


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I don't understand why it's legal to refuse HB tenants.


you mean like in the sixties signs in windows saying no blacks no irish,yes you may have point there


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 4, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> I meant the head of the household being a he!  Who decides who is head of the household and what about some households I've heard about where there is no he?


I posted 'he' because i'm a he and that's just how i talk. Call it a slip of the keyboard. I certainly do not think only men run households.


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 4, 2014)

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=162363267287488&id=130460543811094
They really are a pair of cunts....


----------



## toggle (Jan 4, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Of course not.
> That wasn't my point at all. The problem is that in those households where the head - the person that will receive UC - is, for example, abusive and controlling.



it's irrelevant anyway. someone that controlling will have the purse strings, whoever the payment is made out to


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 4, 2014)

If anybody likes karmic payback, this is the article for you, It also alludes to perhaps the real reasons behind evicting those on HB:


> Whispers of trouble began last September when the Wilsons announced that they were selling their properties so they could retire. Getting shot of the entire portfolio at once would be more convenient for all concerned, including tenants, it was argued.
> 
> Despite the publicity surrounding their decision to sell they have not found a buyer. And, although they deny it, their problems look acute.
> 
> Financial Mail has learnt that at least one property has been put into receivership by a major lender. The couple also face action from a number of local authorities that are owed council tax on unlet houses. Last week, from their modest-looking home in Boughton Monchelsea, near Maidstone, Fergus Wilson insisted there were no cash-flow problems. He knew about a property being taken into receivership, he said, but blamed an 'administrative error' by the lender, Bank of Ireland.



http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...9285/Buy-to-let-gurus-see-empire-crumble.html


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 4, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I don't mean to defend landlords, but often the insurance prohibits you renting to HB claimants, so it's not even in their control.


Is there any indication of this apart from these people? And probably a shitload of internet landlord cunts citing it without any justification.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 4, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is there any indication of this apart from these people? And probably a shitload of internet landlord cunts citing it without any justification.


I've heard it mentioned on Money Box that if you've got an ordinary mortgage on your home and then you let it out, you have to change the insurance.  IIRC part of the difference between BTL insurance and the other kind is this thing about housing benefit-claiming tenants carrying a far higher premium.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 4, 2014)

Greebo said:


> I've heard it mentioned on Money Box that if you've got an ordinary mottgage on your home and then you let it out, you have to change the insurance.  IIRC part of the difference between BTL insurance and the other kind is this thing about housing benefit-claiming tenants carrying a far higher premium.


Is it true though?


----------



## Greebo (Jan 4, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is it true though?


Given that it was mentioned by one of the experts, not one of the callers, I don't think they'd have any reason to mislead.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 4, 2014)

I was able to keep the insurance policy on my flat because it covered both tenants and the owner.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 4, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Given that it was mentioned by one of the experts, not one of the callers, I don't think they'd have any reason to mislead.


I don't know who the experts were and they could well have reason to distort the issue, or to repeat things they'd heard but had no legal justification for.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 4, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't know who the experts were and they could well have reason to distort the issue, or to repeat things they'd heard but had no legal justification for.


*shrug* That's something you'd have to take up with the BBC.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 4, 2014)

Greebo said:


> *shrug* That's something you'd have to take up with the BBC.


Maybe people shouldn't quote it if there's no justification for it.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jan 5, 2014)

http://www.which.co.uk/money/mortga...buy-to-let-mortgage-guide/landlord-insurance/


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 5, 2014)

ETA: Sorry misunderstood. It is true you need different insurance as a landlord. Not sure about HB claimants specifically though.


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 5, 2014)

It's true. I used to work in the insurance industry.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> It's true. I used to work in the insurance industry.


Thank you.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> If anybody likes karmic payback, this is the article for you, It also alludes to perhaps the real reasons behind evicting those on HB:
> 
> 
> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...9285/Buy-to-let-gurus-see-empire-crumble.html



That article is dated 2010. What is interesting about it is that they were in trouble at that time. This was after all during the economic crisis. From article it appears they were saved by banks due to being to big to fail- like the banks. The banks treated them in a way they would not a mere homeowner.



> His version of events may not give the whole picture. It is likely that lenders have 'encouraged' the couple towards a solution that avoids repossession or wholesale receivership.





> 'How else would you manage a situation where two out of three homes in an estate were repossessed asked one lettings agent. This view is supported by the fact that at least one lender - the failed Bradford & Bingley, now supported by taxpayers - has renegotiated the Wilsons' mortgage terms.
> 
> In April 2009, B&B, to whom the couple paid a staggering £350,000 in monthly mortgage interest, allowed them to swap a fixed mortgage rate of 5.24%, maturing in 2012, for a variable rate of 2.25%. Ordinary borrowers in difficulty could only dream of similar assistance.
> 
> ...



Another factor that may be relevant here since this article was written is the long term effect of Quantitative Easing. This has saved the banks and also kept asset prices up. QE has been to benefit of the better off.  If the "free market" had been allowed to run its course the Wilson’s business model would not have survived. QE has become a fiscal policy rather than a short term extraordinary measure.

The point is that none of this has anything to do with there reputed business acumen.

In Eire the same kind of people as the Wilsons went under. You would have thought they might be a show a bit more understanding of others considering they came close to losing it all.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2014)

Much as I hate landlords, stories like this do make me thankful for the fact that mine is pretty good. For one thing he's happy to have tennants who are claiming HB which makes the process of applying for it a lot quicker and easier. If something needs fixing he'll usually send someone round within a day or two. He has a lot of properties but he has his own staff to deal with everything and they're infinitely nicer to deal with than agency 'people'. The rent is dirt cheap and hasn't gone up in years. He doesn't care if we paint the walls, drill holes in the walls, dig up the garden or generally treat the place like, you know, our home.

Given the nature of the economy and the housing market, lots of people need to rent. This is not ideal, but nor is it likely to change any time soon. But you can be a landlord without making people's lives a misery, without thinking that your position gives you the right to play the social engineer, without passing judgement on the people who make your very comfortable lifestyle possible.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2014)

And I've had shit landlords in the past. From taking money out of the deopsit for blu-tac residue on the walls to not even apologising about the four-foot chunk of ceiling that fell down and landed on my head, never mind repairing it. They really can take a huge chunk out of your quality of life, never mind your wallet.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 5, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> And I've had shit landlords in the past. From taking money out of the deopsit for blu-tac residue on the walls to not even apologising about the four-foot chunk of ceiling that fell down and landed on my head, never mind repairing it. They really can take a huge chunk out of your quality of life, never mind your wallet.


What annoys me about landlords is even when you leave the place immaculate on moving out (one check-out person said to me she'd never seen the place so clean) is that they still deduct money for a 'light cleaning' at the end. My last landlord moaned when I told him I was moving out, then moaned about the state of the carpets which were filthy and stained when I moved in. This place was so dirty when I moved in it took me two days to clean it and empty all the crap out of the cupboards before I could even begin to unpack my own stuff. The letting agent also lied about putting some of the furniture in storage so it's quite cluttered.

The worst landlord I ever had served an eviction notice on me and my flatmate the week after we said we wanted to extend the lease (because he wanted to sell) then after we moved out claimed we had damaged a leather chair we had never sat in and ruined the washing machine by putting a green pen through it, a colour neither of us ever used. We ended up paying up because we were both trying to buy properties and the letting agency was refusing to give us a mortgage reference if we didn't. They also claimed we stole a fork from the property, which it turned out had gotten mixed into our stuff when we moved, so I sent it registered post back to the agent and he was too lazy to pick it up from the sorting office, so they sent it back. The crowning glory was when they continued to take rent money from the joint account (we'd left enough in to cover final bills etc) and refused to give it back for three months until threatened with small claims court action. 

The property took over a year to sell, at the height of the property market boom in Edinburgh - a year in which he could have rental income.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2014)

Charging for general cleaning, ordinary wear and tear etc is a fucking pisstake. Especially when the landlord has provided the shoddiest furniture and fittings money can buy, which most of them do.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Given the nature of the economy and the housing market, lots of people need to rent. This is not ideal, but nor is it likely to change any time soon..



Not ideal? In Germany its normal. I know someone who went live there. He contrasted the rights and security he had renting in Germany with the lack of it here.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 5, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


>


----------



## emanymton (Jan 5, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> What annoys me about landlords is even when you leave the place immaculate on moving out (one check-out person said to me she'd never seen the place so clean) is that they still deduct money for a 'light cleaning' at the end. My last landlord moaned when I told him I was moving out, then moaned about the state of the carpets which were filthy and stained when I moved in. This place was so dirty when I moved in it took me two days to clean it and empty all the crap out of the cupboards before I could even begin to unpack my own stuff. The letting agent also lied about putting some of the furniture in storage so it's quite cluttered.
> 
> The worst landlord I ever had served an eviction notice on me and my flatmate the week after we said we wanted to extend the lease (because he wanted to sell) then after we moved out claimed we had damaged a leather chair we had never sat in and ruined the washing machine by putting a green pen through it, a colour neither of us ever used. We ended up paying up because we were both trying to buy properties and the letting agency was refusing to give us a mortgage reference if we didn't. They also claimed we stole a fork from the property, which it turned out had gotten mixed into our stuff when we moved, so I sent it registered post back to the agent and he was too lazy to pick it up from the sorting office, so they sent it back. The crowning glory was when they continued to take rent money from the joint account (we'd left enough in to cover final bills etc) and refused to give it back for three months until threatened with small claims court action.
> 
> The property took over a year to sell, at the height of the property market boom in Edinburgh - a year in which he could have rental income.


Advice I was got from a landlord. Never pay your last month's rent until you get your deposit back.


----------



## Schmetterling (Jan 5, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> If anybody likes karmic payback, this is the article for you, It also alludes to perhaps the real reasons behind evicting those on HB:
> 
> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...9285/Buy-to-let-gurus-see-empire-crumble.html



I think it was this couple that was featured on a programme a good 8/10 years ago.  They came across as really nice.  Though they owned many properties they had set the rent to give them just a little profit each month, reasoning that there is only so much money they need to live on.  They praised their tenants for reliability and felt that they had such a good relationship with them as they – the Wilsons – had the same background as their tenants. 

Roll forward to 2010; there was media coverage of them having to sell up property due to the bad economy; I felt sorry for them.

Read the article in The Guardian yesterday and was apoplectic.  I sincerely wish they lose every single property they own and live a long, miserable life.

I fear – maybe not these runts – someone is going to get lynched.  I particularly like how the article above practically lists the Wilson’s home address ...

That is - in  case your browser doesn't show it:
'Last week, from their modest-looking home in *Boughton Monchelsea, near Maidstone*, Fergus Wilson ...'.


Boughton Monchelsea, near Maidstone










Boughton Monchelsea, near Maidstone
















Boughton Monchelsea, near Maidstone


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2014)

Schmetterling said:


> I think it was this couple that was featured on a programme a good 8/10 years ago.  They came across as really nice.  Though they owned many properties they had set the rent to give them just a little profit each month, reasoning that there is only so much money they need to live on.  They praised their tenants for reliability and felt that they had such a good relationship with them as they – the Wilsons – had the same background as their tenants.
> 
> Roll forward to 2010; there was media coverage of them having to sell up property due to the bad economy; I felt sorry for them.
> 
> ...




The Limes, Heath Road, Boughton Monchelsea, near Maidstone. ME17 4HS.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 5, 2014)

Greebo said:


> I've heard it mentioned on Money Box that if you've got an ordinary mortgage on your home and then you let it out, you have to change the insurance.  IIRC part of the difference between BTL insurance and the other kind is this thing about housing benefit-claiming tenants carrying a far higher premium.



I thought this was just another financial product, a way of chiselling higher insurance premiums out of BTLers


----------



## peterkro (Jan 5, 2014)

The Limes address is not where they live, though it is the business address they use.The actual address,also in Boughton Monchelsea,is on the Facebook page.
This: Boughton Lodge, Peens Lane, Boughton Monchelsea, ME17 4BY


----------



## Greebo (Jan 5, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I thought this was just another financial product, a way of chiselling higher insurance premiums out of BTLers


The way that it came across (before FM has another go at me, or what I'm saying) was that the thing about insurance and letting was written into the conditions of the mortgage.  Screwing more money out of BTLers would be a handy side effect for the financial industry.


----------



## Schmetterling (Jan 5, 2014)

peterkro said:


> The Limes address is not where they live, though it is the business address they use.The actual address,also in Boughton Monchelsea,is on the Facebook page.
> This: Boughton Lodge, Peens Lane, Boughton Monchelsea, ME17 4BY




Sorry; did you say _*Boughton Lodge, Peens Lane, Boughton Monchelsea, ME17 4BY???*_


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> More scumbags here;
> http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/28/new-class-landlords-profiting-generation-rent
> 
> Former right-to-buy council homes have provided rich pickings for investors. It has emerged that Charles Gow, the son of Ian Gow, the Tory minister and Thatcher aide during the peak years of the right-to-buy boom, owns at least 40 ex-council properties.



odious, like father like son....


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2014)

btw, this article seems to have had the biggest response on CIF I've ever seen, 5000 comments

Like many of us have said, we are hurtling back to the 19th C


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2014)

oh, and the landlords have the right to do this where as within reason in times of mass council housing, it was much more benign.

the thing is, civil society has tolerated this 'no dss' discrimination for too long.


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2014)

weepiper said:


> So furious today about this article and this one about the teenage single mothers being evicted from a LA hostel in Stratford that I almost can't think. How is this legal? How can scum rat fucks like that landlord be allowed to accumulate 200 tenants on benefits and then just say 'no fuck you, you can get to fuck because I'm not making enough money from you' like this? How can a LA just wash its hands of vulnerable young people who desperately need help, throwing them to the mercies of this fucker and his ilk? How is it not blatant sex discrimination given the proportion of housing benefit claimants who are single mothers, and therefore fucking illegal? Why is no-one helping these people? Not a fucking PEEP from Labour about it.




because there is no opposition, the most talked about thing on many left sites now, is the Feminist conference next month.


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Subhuman scum to be liquidated.



I wonder if they are Christians, evangelicals?


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2014)

Schmetterling said:


> I think it was this couple that was featured on a programme a good 8/10 years ago.  They came across as really nice.  Though they owned many properties they had set the rent to give them just a little profit each month, reasoning that there is only so much money they need to live on.  They praised their tenants for reliability and felt that they had such a good relationship with them as they – the Wilsons – had the same background as their tenants.
> 
> Roll forward to 2010; there was media coverage of them having to sell up property due to the bad economy; I felt sorry for them.
> 
> ...



If they were OK when they started, what has changed them?


----------



## Lorca (Jan 5, 2014)

The caring face of capitalism!


----------



## Schmetterling (Jan 5, 2014)

treelover said:


> If they were OK when they started, what has changed them?



Mammon!  But I was probably fooled though.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 5, 2014)

I don't blame this man. He is doing his best to protect his investments working within the system that exists. He is _not_ responsible for that system. 

He has done us _all_ a great service by laying bare just how fucked up that system is - how utterly, not just morally reprehensible, but plain fuckin stupid the privatised housing market is.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 5, 2014)

LiamO said:


> I don't blame this man. He is doing his best to protect his investments working within the system that exists. He is _not_ responsible for that system.
> 
> He has done us _all_ a great service by laying bare just how fucked up that system is - how utterly, not just morally reprehensible, but plain fuckin stupid the privatised housing market is.



I agree one man is not responsible and hes in the position hes in cos of capitalidm, however owning over 1000 properties means you're bound to have screwed someone over in the process of accruing that much wealth, and it is his tenants who are effectively subsidizing his business and his lifestyle, the objection to it is he's effectively living off others who are kept in that position by the need to rent. In addition to that you can be on HB and still work, they're not exclusive.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 5, 2014)

LiamO said:


> I don't blame this man. He is doing his best to protect his investments working within the system that exists. He is _not_ responsible for that system.
> 
> He has done us _all_ a great service by laying bare just how fucked up that system is - how utterly, not just morally reprehensible,* but plain fuckin stupid the privatised housing market is.*



Very much so. It even gets on my nerves when people talk about "market rent" - As if such a fundemental need as a roof over one's head can be left to the vagaries of "the market" - Whatever that's supposed to be.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 5, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Very much so. It even gets on my nerves when people talk about "market rent" - As if such a fundemental need as a roof over one's head can be left to the vagaries of "the market" - Whatever that's supposed to be.



Exactly.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2014)

Social cleansing continues...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2014)

LiamO said:


> I don't blame this man. He is doing his best to protect his investments working within the system that exists. He is _not_ responsible for that system.
> 
> He has done us _all_ a great service by laying bare just how fucked up that system is - how utterly, not just morally reprehensible, but plain fuckin stupid the privatised housing market is.



Anyone that does well out of any system is responsible for it.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 5, 2014)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Anyone that does well out of any system is responsible for it.



what a load of old pony.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 5, 2014)

LiamO said:


> I don't blame this man.


I kind of do. He chose to make a lot of money out of this system. he knows it discriminates against the poor and those deemed undesirable. He may not be directly responsible, but I have no problem apportioning some of the blame to people like him who are quite happy that the system is the way it is.

I bet he won't lift a finger to help any of those he's now about to put on the street.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 5, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Very much so. It even gets on my nerves when people talk about "market rent" - As if such a fundemental need as a roof over one's head can be left to the vagaries of "the market" - Whatever that's supposed to be.



market rent - if you have 1000 properties in the ashford area, then I woulod suggest that you are in a positon to dictate what market rent should be / will be.


----------



## xenon (Jan 5, 2014)

Fuck not blaming this man. This isn't someone who's been left a house in a will, can't live in it themselves for whatever reason etc. He's a profiteering landlord who owns 1000 properties, deciding to deny housing to those in receipt of social security, in a time of an acute housing shortage. He's unlikely ever to be homeless or need HB. He is not someone caught in a desperate game with no personal agency, no control. He's actively and wilfully exaserbating the situation for greater personal gain.

Fuck him and his ilk.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2014)

LiamO said:


> I don't blame this man. He is doing his best to protect his investments working within the system that exists. He is _not_ responsible for that system.


No, it is purely his choice as to the business he got into and how he conducts that business.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 5, 2014)

xenon said:


> Fuck not blaming this man. This isn't someone who's been left a house in a will, can't live in it themselves for whatever reason etc. He's a profiteering landlord who owns 1000 properties.... blah



This is a man who came from the same background as his tenants. He did not design the system. He is merely doing what every other business does... maximising profit for the shareholders. 

But by all means direct your anger at individuals. That always works well. For the system.


----------



## xenon (Jan 5, 2014)

LiamO said:


> This is a man who came from the same background as his tenants. He did not design the system. He is merely doing what every other business does... maximising profit for the shareholders.
> 
> But by all means direct your anger at individuals. That always works well. For the system.




Mug

Besides, the "system" is people.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 5, 2014)

What about the people who have good experiences of private landlords though? They work to the same system.


----------



## xenon (Jan 5, 2014)

Oh and let's be clear. If I as someone of a working class background, like that matters here, did something like this, I'd fully accept being labelled a cunt. It's called being an adult exercising choices.


----------



## xenon (Jan 5, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> What about the people who have good experiences of private landlords though? They work to the same system.



So what. Do all landlords want to evict their HB tenants?


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 5, 2014)

No they don't that's what I'm saying. Sorry other post was in response to Liam.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 5, 2014)

not-bono-ever said:


> market rent - if you have 1000 properties in the ashford area, then I woulod suggest that you are in a positon to dictate what market rent should be / will be.



Yeah, I know what it _means_. I was saying it's bullshit though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 5, 2014)

Obviously he is responsible for his own actions and should be generally reviled, partly to discourage others. It is certainly the case that there are enough appalling cunts around to replace him if he did accidentally get thrown off a railway bridge, though, and the system enables them to act on their cuntitude to harm other people.


----------



## agricola (Jan 5, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> What about the people who have good experiences of private landlords though? They work to the same system.



One would imagine that the chances of being a "good" landlord decrease as the number of properties that landlord owns increases.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 5, 2014)

hes an old bloke, maybe not in the best of health by the look of him- retire for fucks sake, move the properties into a charitable vehicle that would ensure they were run at cost and actually did some good for those who need it .shit, you would probabaly get a kinghthood out of it .how much money does he need?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2014)

not-bono-ever said:


> hes an old bloke, maybe not in the best of health by the look of him- retire for fucks sake, move the properties into a charitable vehicle that would ensure they were run at cost and actually did some good for those who need it .shit, you would probabaly get a kinghthood out of it .how much money does he need?



Greed is not about needs, is it? People like the Wilsons want more and more.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 5, 2014)

Just maximising profits, like a good capitalist should.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2014)

LiamO said:


> Just maximising profits, like a good capitalist should.


He's responsible for his actions, not capitalism.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 5, 2014)

Lorca said:


> The caring face of capitalism!




I wish more interviewers would show barely disguised disgust like this.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 5, 2014)

I think he has done an invaluable service.

When people but-to-rent a few houses it all seems reasonbale enough.... looking after their pension and all that. 

It is only when you can view it on this scale... and he is so open about it... that the idiocy of the system is laid bare.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 5, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I wish more interviewers would show barely disguised disgust like this.



And had such willing dupes for interviewees.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 5, 2014)

Another vid by the same YouTube Chanel.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 5, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> He's responsible for his actions, not capitalism.



If you're a capitalist you're responsible for capitalism.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2014)

Kid_Eternity said:


> If you're a capitalist you're responsible for capitalism.


I wouldn't go so far that he's responsible for the whole kit and caboodle of capitalism, most people don't have a choice but to work within the system, but within that system he is responsible for the way he runs his business.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 5, 2014)

Kid_Eternity said:


> If you're a capitalist you're responsible for capitalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Greed is not about needs, is it? People like the Wilsons want more and more.



And feel *entitled* to more and more.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And feel *entitled* to more and more.



Oh yes.

His rentier 'empire' has enjoyed massive state support, and let's not forget that 20% of those he's sent eviction notices to will be "hard-working" families. That's those families with a worker in other "capitalist" enterprises keen to offset the costs of labour to the state.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 5, 2014)

1000 houses for fucks sake. 

That is all out all consuming greed


----------



## jusali (Jan 5, 2014)

But let us not concern ourselves with cunts like this. For these are the people who by their very actions do nothing for the promotion of capitalism. They in fact enrage us all, and as the wealth is filtered to the top the wealthy get fewer and the enraged get more numerous, thus the inevitable will once again assert itself. The pattern is centuries old and the rich will be made suffer be it with gulags or Madame guillotine........
Greed is the tool of the young spirit who has yet to learn the abundance of the universe and the infinite number of lifetimes it takes to achieve this revelation. They are more to be pitied than blamed and let's not forget these people can't take it wiv them which is enormous satisfaction in itself......


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 5, 2014)

jusali said:


> Greed is the tool of the young spirit who has yet to learn the abundance of the universe and the infinite number of lifetimes it takes to achieve this revelation.



wut.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 5, 2014)

A comment on one blog I read put forward the idea that mayube this guy knows something about where the benefit system is going to be in the future and that's why he's doing this.

More than just common sense assumptions about how UC will fail.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 5, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> A comment on one blog I read put forward the idea that mayube this guy knows something about where the benefit system is going to be in the future and that's why he's doing this.
> 
> More than just common sense assumptions about how UC will fail.


From what I can gather, he's having problems selling some of his properties - I wonder if this isn't all more about spreading the blame around.

But I think that, if I had had a soulectomy, and was a landlord of multiple homes, I'd probably look at the clusterfuck Universal Credit clown car honking and parping its way down the road towards me, and be saying to myself "do I want to have ANYTHING to do with this crock of shit?". I'm pretty sure what answer I'd be coming up with, too.

And, let's face it, that's almost certainly what the clown driving the car would want me to think. Because his mission is to make it as uncomfortable and awkward as possible for anyone to live on benefits, so as to entice them into all those luverly jobs just waiting for them. And if, in making it awkward for them, he makes it awkward for me to rent to them, then he's just made his own job a bit easier, if a little less fun.

And - assuming I am still this conscience-free landlord scum type - all the time there's a shortage of accommodation, I'm going to be able to find a nice reliable private tenant to let to anyway, so what's it to me?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 6, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> 1000 houses for fucks sake.
> 
> That is all out all consuming greed



Yup. Those defending him are seriously lacking a moral compass.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 6, 2014)

There isn't anybody defending him. Check your own irony compass.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 6, 2014)

existentialist said:


> From what I can gather, he's having problems selling some of his properties - I wonder if this isn't all more about spreading the blame around.
> 
> But I think that, if I had had a soulectomy, and was a landlord of multiple homes, I'd probably look at the clusterfuck Universal Credit clown car honking and parping its way down the road towards me, and be saying to myself "do I want to have ANYTHING to do with this crock of shit?". I'm pretty sure what answer I'd be coming up with, too.
> 
> ...



Apart from the slightly curious clown car metaphor, excellent post. I hadn't given much thought to the implications of universal credit for housing tbh.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 6, 2014)

Is there any way of knowing how many tenants he has under 25?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2014)

'responsible' for the system no, balls deep and happily complicit in it most certainly yes. kick him off a cliff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2014)

I see osbournes come out and suggested the cut for HB for under 25's should go ahead as part of a 'needed' further 25bn in cuts.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Another vid by the same YouTube Chanel.




Took me 37 seconds, must be losing my touch.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Took me 37 seconds, must be losing my touch.


Heh, the bloke's name was a bit of a giveaway...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 6, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:
			
		

> Although the obvious thing I hope happens is that the boiler, all the pipes and even the wires in the walls get ripped out. That costs thousands to sort out. And until it's sorted the flat/house is unlettable.



Prawns and fish in as many nooks and crannies as possible. In the loft, in the wall cavities. And lots and lots of maggots.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2014)

accidentally flood the bathroom on way out


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 6, 2014)

They should be crushed into camp dust.


----------



## Smangus (Jan 6, 2014)

LiamO said:


> Just maximising profits, like a good capitalist should



Is this the fiscal equivalent of saying " He was only obeying orders" ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2014)

existentialist said:


> From what I can gather, he's having problems selling some of his properties - I wonder if this isn't all more about spreading the blame around.



He "concentrated" the majority of his assets in a single area, which is a massive mistake - as with any modern capitalist endeavour, diversity is what brings greater security.  This means that any attempt to sell privately (to another B-T-L leech, for example) gives the buyer the advantage - the buyer can push the price down merely by pointing out that they'd be taking on the same risks as this foul creature has encountered.
Attempt to sell each property individually to the home-buying public, and once that public in and around Ashford know about Wilson's travails, they too have a hammer with which to beat the price down.



> But I think that, if I had had a soulectomy, and was a landlord of multiple homes, I'd probably look at the clusterfuck Universal Credit clown car honking and parping its way down the road towards me, and be saying to myself "do I want to have ANYTHING to do with this crock of shit?". I'm pretty sure what answer I'd be coming up with, too.



I think this is *part* of the motivation for a lot of landlords, let alone this pair of cunts.  Some of them (especially in the south-east) have decided that it's more convenient to only rent to "working people" (whatever the fuck that means), and I've no doubt it's also more convenient in terms of upping the rent, too.



> And, let's face it, that's almost certainly what the clown driving the car would want me to think. Because his mission is to make it as uncomfortable and awkward as possible for anyone to live on benefits, so as to entice them into all those luverly jobs just waiting for them. And if, in making it awkward for them, he makes it awkward for me to rent to them, then he's just made his own job a bit easier, if a little less fun.
> 
> And - assuming I am still this conscience-free landlord scum type - all the time there's a shortage of accommodation, I'm going to be able to find a nice reliable private tenant to let to anyway, so what's it to me?



Quite.

You bastard!


----------



## existentialist (Jan 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite.
> 
> You bastard!


I know. Sometimes I even worry myself with how easy it is for me to replicate the mindset of these bloodsucking bastards. I'll be applying for IDS's job before I know it, at this rate


----------



## RedDragon (Jan 6, 2014)

It would be interesting to see just how HB has contributed to his empire building, I rather suspect he has been milking the system for years on the back of sub-standard housing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He "concentrated" the majority of his assets in a single area, which is a massive mistake - as with any modern capitalist endeavour, diversity is what brings greater security.



This bloke's greed seems to be matched only by his laziness. I would guess he simply couldn't be bothered to get in the car and look at properties further afield. 

And yes, concentrating your investments in one place does seem pretty silly. One decent-sized affordable housing development in that area could kneecap his whole business.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> This bloke's greed seems to be matched only by his laziness. I would guess he simply couldn't be bothered to get in the car and look at properties further afield.
> 
> And yes, concentrating your investments in one place does seem pretty silly. One decent-sized affordable housing development in that area could kneecap his whole business.


I guess he's probably feeling fairly justified in his assumption it isn't going to happen any time soon...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 6, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I guess he's probably feeling fairly justified in his assumption it isn't going to happen any time soon...



Well no. And part of the reason house building is so stagnant in this country is that property speculators like this cunt here have so much weight to throw around. 

I would think Kent is pretty Tory as well, which probably doesn't help at local planning level.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> This bloke's greed seems to be matched only by his laziness. I would guess he simply couldn't be bothered to get in the car and look at properties further afield.
> 
> And yes, concentrating your investments in one place does seem pretty silly. One decent-sized affordable housing development in that area could kneecap his whole business.



It's not like, at the time he started amassing his empire, there weren't plenty of cheaper properties further out from Ashford, in Folkestone and Dover, for example, or Canterbury.
His own laziness and/or ignorance have shafted him, and that at least is something to be thankful for.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 6, 2014)

He'd be in competition with an Urbanite who, if I recall correctly, has BTLs in Canterbury


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2014)

existentialist said:


> He'd be in competition with an Urbanite who, if I recall correctly, has BTLs in Canterbury



Giles is a bit of a social-Darwinist "kill the poor"/sterilise the sexually-incontinent, if they're working class-type, so they'd probably get on well.
As well as two complete cunts *can* get on, anyway.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 6, 2014)

and a landlord!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2014)

> Mrs Wilson said rising rents, which have outstripped the amount of housing benefit available in many areas, was another problem. "Say someone on benefits is getting £500 allowance for a property where the rent is £600," she said. "It is wrong to encourage people to live in those circumstances, because it will put them at risk of getting into debt. "



You can tell that Mrs Wilson ( & her spouse) was a Maths teacher.

Hmmmm is they any other way that 'the equation' might be balanced?

Mebbe lower the rent.....

Greedy fecking arseholes.


----------



## marty21 (Jan 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You can tell that Mrs Wilson ( & her spouse) was a Maths teacher.
> 
> Hmmmm is they any other way that 'the equation' might be balanced?
> 
> ...


Or force them to set reasonable rents by legislating , bring back fair rent legislation.


----------



## treelover (Jan 6, 2014)

the guy was on ch4 news earlier, he definitely has an agenda, he was questioning "where do people on benefits find the extra hundred pounds a month", they have needed to top up their rents after HB to the amount required by his company.


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 6, 2014)

marty21 said:


> Or force them to set reasonable rents by legislating , bring back fair rent legislation.



An unnecessarily bureaucratic way of bringing down rents.

And it does nothing to stimulate the construction industry - arguably the most effective way of boosting the economy and creating well-paid, meaningful, employment.

By far the best way to reduce rents, and houses price in general, is to build houses – and lots of ‘em.


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 6, 2014)

Paul T said:


> don't despair, go round and burn the cunt's house down.



Not much point - he's got 999 others!


----------



## RedDragon (Jan 6, 2014)

Doing a search you'll soon discover his company almost went under a couple of times and there has been reports of him mistreating tenants and ignoring heating and plumbing complaints.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 6, 2014)

The C4 interview's here, I haven't watched it yet because the kids aren't quite asleep yet and I don't want to wake them up shouting at it

http://www.channel4.com/news/housing-benefit-landlord-fergus-wilson-eviction

Truly a man for whom the phrase 'first against the wall' could have been invented.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 6, 2014)

"You're worth 240 million pounds, do you think you really need to put rents up?"

*brief pause*

"Yes, I do."

Death's to good for him. He should be made to live out his days in the same precarious, destitute existence to which he is so delighted to consign others.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> "You're worth 240 million pounds, do you think you really need to put rents up?"
> 
> *brief pause*
> 
> ...


Have you seen _Martyrs_? He could provide us with useful information.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 6, 2014)

Oh dear christ I just got to the bit where he admits that he's knowlingly making battered women return to their husbands because they can't afford his rents. Words fail me.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> Not much point - he's got 999 others!



If, as reported, the Wilsons pay very nearly £400k pcm to just one of their mortgage providers....I'd suggest that they don't _own _that many houses; the banks do.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> If, as reported, the Wilsons pay very nearly £400k pcm to just one of their mortgage providers....I'd suggest that they don't _own _that many houses; the banks do.



But it's the Wilsons who are taking the risk.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2014)

Quartz said:


> But it's the Wilsons who are taking the risk.


 Not really.

The scumbag Wilsons are effectively managing the portfolio for the banks, and as everybody knows the state/taxpayers cover their risks.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 6, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> An unnecessarily bureaucratic way of bringing down rents.
> 
> And it does nothing to stimulate the construction industry - arguably the most effective way of boosting the economy and creating well-paid, meaningful, employment.
> 
> By far the best way to reduce rents, and houses price in general, is to build houses – and lots of ‘em.


But construction is at best a series of temporary contracts for those in the industry, as they move from project to project, assuming that the project goes ahead.

What we need to do to boost the economy and create well-paid meaningful employment is to encourage the manufacturing sector.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 6, 2014)

saw this dude on the channel 4 news today; honest to god if he was a bad guy in a movie as an embodiment of evil, he would destroy ones ability to suspend ones disbelief in the show - you'd be like too evil to be believable.. seriously he gave davros a run for his money, except he's real...


----------



## revol68 (Jan 7, 2014)

As much of a cunt as the landlord is (and there is no doubt he is) he gave honest answers, a dispassionate articulation of market imperatives, his brutal honesty is a hundred times more useful than mealy mouthed wiberals wringing their hands about morals and kindness.

Same as the boss of Google straight up saying of course they try to avoid taxes cos that's capitalism.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 7, 2014)

revol68 said:


> As much of a cunt as the landlord is (and there is no doubt he is) he gave honest answers, a dispassionate articulation of market imperatives, his brutal honesty is a hundred times more useful than mealy mouthed wiberals wringing their hands about morals and kindness.
> 
> Same as the boss of Google straight up saying of course they try to avoid taxes cos that's capitalism.



aye was totally thinking that last night when i see that interview. it is really unusual to see someone being so upfront like that though.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

revol68 said:


> As much of a cunt as the landlord is (and there is no doubt he is) he gave honest answers, a dispassionate articulation of market imperatives, his brutal honesty is a hundred times more useful than mealy mouthed wiberals wringing their hands about morals and kindness.
> 
> Same as the boss of Google straight up saying of course they try to avoid taxes cos that's capitalism.



Exactly.  Blame the system, not the person.  Otherwise your analysis is all wrong and you may end up making Terrible Mistakes.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Not really.



Yes really.



> The scumbag Wilsons are effectively managing the portfolio for the banks, and as everybody knows the state/taxpayers cover their risks.



That's correct in the short term but not in the long. The Wilsons's business is based on the rental income exceeding the mortgage and other costs and so in 20 years or so they'll end up with 1K properties free and clear and really coin it.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Yes really.
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct in the short term but not in the long. The Wilsons's business is based on the rental income exceeding the mortgage and other costs and so in 20 years or so they'll end up with 1K properties free and clear and really coin it.



In 20 years they will be dead. They are both in their mid-sixties.


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 7, 2014)

rover07 said:


> In 20 years they will be dead. They are both in their mid-sixties.



It's not all bad news then.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2014)

rover07 said:


> In 20 years they will be dead. They are both in their mid-sixties.



They have children. I expect they'll turn their empire over to them when they're 70 or so - there's no point in letting HMRC have 40% and it's got to be more than 7 years before they die.

BTW according to an older article I found, they own over 300 houses outright - of course they may have remortgaged them since.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You can tell that Mrs Wilson ( & her spouse) was a Maths teacher.
> 
> Hmmmm is they any other way that 'the equation' might be balanced?
> 
> ...



In that channel 4 interview he says it's 'common sense' to raise rents when property prices go up. Except that it's not, because the value of properties currently on the market has no bearing on the cost of mortgage payments on a house you've already bought. What he means to say, I suspect, is that as property prices go up it's easier to get away with charging higher rents. Common sense doesn't enter into it, it's just greed.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

revol68 said:


> As much of a cunt as the landlord is (and there is no doubt he is) he gave honest answers, a dispassionate articulation of market imperatives, his brutal honesty is a hundred times more useful than mealy mouthed wiberals wringing their hands about morals and kindness.
> 
> Same as the boss of Google straight up saying of course they try to avoid taxes cos that's capitalism.



You're right, it's much better to be evil and honest about it than kind and decent but mealy-mouthed.

How is being dispassionate about the suffering you're causing people, purely for the sake of your own wallet, a good thing? Do you think the people who he's evciting give a shit if he's honest about it? Or are they still out on the street either way?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> In that channel 4 interview he says it's 'common sense' to raise rents when property prices go up. Except that it's not, because the value of properties currently on the market has no bearing on the cost of mortgage payments on a house you've already bought. What he means to say, I suspect, is that as property prices go up it's easier to get away with charging higher rents. Common sense doesn't enter into it, it's just greed.


To people like that, greed == common sense


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

existentialist said:


> To people like that, greed == common sense



Evidently, just as putting human rights before personal profit is common sense to me.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're right, it's much better to be evil and honest about it than kind and decent but mealy-mouthed.
> 
> How is being dispassionate about the suffering you're causing people, purely for the sake of your own wallet, a good thing? Do you think the people who he's evciting give a shit if he's honest about it? Or are they still out on the street either way?



Because it's about capitalism, market imperatives not the greediness or other personal attributes of particular landlords.

A cunt like this lays it out more honestly than the mealy mouthed apologist who does the same but cries crocodile tears about it.

The landlords individual greed is very much secondary, he is simply being a rational actor based on the existing economic arrangement.

Moralising about greed is next to useless, as a means of analysis and of politically confronting the issue.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Evidently, just as putting human rights before personal profit is common sense to me.



Yes, well that's why you'd be a shite capitalist/landlord/financier etc


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

revol68 said:


> Because it's about capitalism, market imperatives not the greediness or other personal attributes of particular landlords.
> 
> A cunt like this lays it out more honestly than the mealy mouthed apologist who does the same but cries crocodile tears about it.
> 
> ...



If Wilson and his ilk feared any kind of meaningful political confrontation of their activities, they wouldn't be so honest about them in the first place. I see this kind of openness as a sign that these people know all too well that they've got the whole thing sewn up, that the only enemy they face is their own financial incompetence.

e2a: But I see how maybe this bloke might have opened a few people's eyes to the cold reality of capitalism. But then capitalism gave up on PR quite a while ago, in much the same way that Fergus Wilson clearly doesn't care about it now.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 7, 2014)

I also liked the fact he laid it at the governments door.

Basically he said "it's not nice but that's capitalism and I'll keep doing it till it's no longer in my financial interest".

It was odd how he hasn't embraced any other ideological defence mechanisms other than "that's the market", none of the usual dehumanisation of those on housing benefit as junkies, drunks and lay abouts. A very modern PC kind of Scrooge.


----------



## treelover (Jan 7, 2014)

Actually he urged the authorities(DWP?) to examine where his tenants find over 100 pounds a month to top up their rent to him.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Yes really.
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct in the short term but not in the long. The Wilsons's business is based on the rental income exceeding the mortgage and other costs and so in 20 years or so they'll end up with 1K properties free and clear and really coin it.



So why the comment about them taking risk?

Borrowing other people's money at 'emergency' low interest rates to exploit renters via grotesquely manipulated tax regimes.....hmmmm...very 'risky'.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> In that channel 4 interview he says it's 'common sense' to raise rents when property prices go up. Except that it's not, because the value of properties currently on the market has no bearing on the cost of mortgage payments on a house you've already bought. What he means to say, I suspect, is that as property prices go up it's easier to get away with charging higher rents. Common sense doesn't enter into it, it's just greed.



Exactly, this is just the sort inverted, BtL/LTV 'logic' that the banks have sold to their sub-contracted 'letting agents' like the Wilson's. In the context of government sanctioned House Price inflation generating election-cycle "growth" through a debt-fuelled housing asset bubble, there is no reason whatsoever for rental values to correlate. House prices relate to the availability of credit, whereas rents relate much more closely to affordability ie. wages which have been declining in real terms.

All that greedy Fergus was saying was that he wanted to maintain or increase his yields to value, (rather than purchase price), irrespective of the human misery his actions might cause.

In a word; cunt.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So why the comment about them taking risk?



Because they're taking the risk that they won't make a profit and therefore not be able to pay off the mortgage. Remember that they've got the cost not only of the mortgage, but also the insurances, credit checks, the risk of not finding a tenant, and loads of other costs I've probably forgotten. The risk of not finding a tenant is the big one, of course: a month's loss of rent can take a long time to recover, while your fixed costs continue to accrue. Changing tenants is another big cost: the whole house has to be spruced up ready for the next tenants. Notice that they employ some people full time for this. It will probably cost them £40K-£50K per person to employ them (that's not the salary they get, of course). So their group of 6 costs £240K-£300K pa - a large chunk of change. Again, a cost.

Anyway, I agree with the comments upthread about them taking this action through not wanting to risk non-payments of benefits. But they're plain stupid to kick them all out: all they need to do is insist that anyone on benefits has a guarantor for the rent (and do a credit check on them).


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Because they're taking the risk that they won't make a profit and therefore not be able to pay off the mortgage. Remember that they've got the cost not only of the mortgage, but also the insurances, credit checks, the risk of not finding a tenant, and loads of other costs I've probably forgotten. The risk of not finding a tenant is the big one, of course: a month's loss of rent can take a long time to recover, while your fixed costs continue to accrue. Changing tenants is another big cost: the whole house has to be spruced up ready for the next tenants. Notice that they employ some people full time for this. It will probably cost them £40K-£50K per person to employ them (that's not the salary they get, of course). So their group of 6 costs £240K-£300K pa - a large chunk of change. Again, a cost.
> 
> Anyway, I agree with the comments upthread about them taking this action through not wanting to risk non-payments of benefits. But they're plain stupid to kick them all out: all they need to do is insist that anyone on benefits has a guarantor for the rent (and do a credit check on them).



The risk that their costs might outweigh their revenues? But if that were to happen, (and the fact that they've gobbled up 1000 houses doesn't suggest that is likely), they could sell some of their (300?) owned properties or declare bankruptcy. Doesn't sound like much of a risk to me. After all what do you suppose their initial capital 'investment' was, back when they kicked off?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Changing tenants is another big cost: the whole house has to be spruced up ready for the next tenants. Notice that they employ some people full time for this.



IME landlords and agencies are quite happy to take cleaning costs out of the outgoing tennant's deposit.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The risk that their costs might outweigh their revenues? But if that were to happen, (and the fact that they've gobbled up 1000 houses doesn't suggest that is likely), they could sell some of their (300?) owned properties



'Just sell' eh? If only it were that simple.



SpookyFrank said:


> IME landlords and agencies are quite happy to take cleaning costs out of the outgoing tennant's deposit.



That's not always possible - you're not allowed to charge for fair wear and tear, though many try to.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> 'Just sell' eh? If only it were that simple.



You sound remarkably sympathetic towards the 'problems' of the Wilsons. What's so fucking complex about selling one of their portfolio of properties?


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You sound remarkably sympathetic towards the 'problems' of the Wilsons. What's so fucking complex about selling one of their portfolio of properties?



I'm guessing that you've never tried to sell a house. It usually takes months.

And no, I'm not sympathetic to them; I just have some understanding of their side. They have taken a capitalist decision, so if they come a cropper it's their responsibility.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I'm guessing that you've never tried to sell a house. It usually takes months.
> 
> I just have some understanding of their side. .





Houses sell quickly if priced right.


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> What he means to say, I suspect, is that as property prices go up it's easier to get away with charging higher rents. Common sense doesn't enter into it, it's just greed.



From the landlord's perspective it's only common sense to raise rents if you're pretty sure there are tenants able to pay.

The problem the Wilsons could face (and the reason they wants to get rid of their HB tenants) is they know that those on HB who face a cap on payments will not be able to pay a higher rent so it makes sense for them, wherever possible, to replace them with those not on benefits from whom he can he can extract a higher rent.

Added to that they know that interest rates are likely to rise shortly and so, in all probability, their business costs could increase markedly.

This could be a major headache, as one might suspect, they're mortgaged up to the hilt but can't raise rents high enough to cover their additional mortgage repayments.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> This could be a major headache, as one might suspect, they're mortgaged up to the hilt but can't raise rents high enough to cover their additional mortgage repayments.



Building his business from nothing to 1000 properties in under twenty years with, by his own admission, zero startup capital suggests that his business model depends on some fairly narrow margins with much of his profits going straight into acquiring new properties. So maybe he doesn't have much wiggle room to cope with interest rate rises, rent defaults etc.

That said he's probably got some front company to make sure that he is not personally liable for anything. That company might well be short of cash, but I doubt Wilson himself suffers the same problem.

But imagine if he did go completely bust and all those 1000 properties appeared on the market at once. Most likely the banks wouldn't allow that to happen as it would reduce house prices in the area, they'd probably decide that it served their purposes better to leave those thousand properties empty until some other property speculator came knocking.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Houses sell quickly if priced right.



I suppose this depends on your definition of quickly. The legal stuff still has to be done, and is still expensive.



happie chappie said:


> This could be a major headache, as one might suspect, they're mortgaged up to the hilt but can't raise rents high enough to cover their additional mortgage repayments.



Live by the mortgage; die by the mortgage.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I suppose this depends on your definition of quickly. The legal stuff still has to be done, and is still expensive.



You know what, that still sounds like a very fucking minor inconvenience for such a loathsome couple. I ask again, where is this risk you mentioned?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

they've got 1000 properties, im sure they can deal with legal costs more than adequately, also they're not going to have all of those properties on credit


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You know what, that still sounds like a very fucking minor inconvenience for such a loathsome couple. I ask again, where is this risk you mentioned?



It may sound like a minor inconvenience, but it isn't. And if you've got the creditors hounding you...

Anyway, they took the risk so they've only themselves to blame if their house of cards comes tumbling down.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> It may sound like a minor inconvenience, but it isn't. And if you've got the creditors hounding you...
> 
> Anyway, they took the risk so they've only themselves to blame if their house of cards comes tumbling down.



Do the Wilsons have creditors 'hounding' them?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

you think they haven't paid off the mortgages for any of these properties?


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Building his business from nothing to 1000 properties in under twenty years with, by his own admission, zero startup capital suggests that his business model depends on some fairly narrow margins with much of his profits going straight into acquiring new properties. So maybe he doesn't have much wiggle room to cope with interest rate rises, rent defaults ete.



This affair throws up so many questions.

It’s difficult to know what their business model is – how is the business itself structured. How many properties do they own outright.

Are they all on BTL mortgages? Are they repayment or interest only? What rates of interest are the mortgages? Are they all with one lender or a whole number? Are they fixed rate or variable? How much is owed on the mortgages? How much is the portfolio actually worth? Are they in negative equity? Etc etc

My guess is that there isn't a great deal of spare cash sloshing around in the business but it's just a hunch that as soon as the rent comes in to the business it goes straight out again.

The only thing that’s self-evident is that he’s a greedy bastard who deserves everything that’s coming to him.

And I’m saying that as a landlord!


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Do the Wilsons have creditors 'hounding' them?



I don't know, but I had HMRC hounding me when I was trying to sell my aunt's house after she died, and I had to really grovel. It was not a pleasant experience.

Anyway, I've detailed some of the issues with being a landlord upthread and I'm not going to repeat them.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I don't know, but I had HMRC hounding me when I was trying to sell my aunt's house after she died, and I had to really grovel. It was not a pleasant experience.
> 
> Anyway, I've detailed some of the issues with being a landlord upthread and I'm not going to repeat them.


 
Wtf?? Do you think that he's doing all of it himself, he' owns 1000 properties, he must be employing people to do some of the admin for him?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

He's made a business from it, this isn't someone trying to sell one house!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> This affair throws up so many questions.



Does it? Only if you want show us that you know some landlord shit.

It's pretty fucking obvious that the Wilsons are rentier scum of the highest order and are quite content to trample over their poor tenants in order to squeeze more profit for themselves. Abject, rapacious greed is not complex.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 7, 2014)

revol68 said:


> Because it's about capitalism, market imperatives not the greediness or other personal attributes of particular landlords.
> 
> A cunt like this lays it out more honestly than the mealy mouthed apologist who does the same but cries crocodile tears about it.
> 
> ...



Exactly, try putting in mealy mouthed apologetics into action and watch the "iron laws of competition" take over. It'd be interesting to see what impact wage freezes and less access to personal credit has had upon luxury  fair trade markets.


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Does it? Only if you want show us that you know some landlord shit.
> 
> It's pretty fucking obvious that the Wilsons are rentier scum of the highest order and are quite content to trample over their poor tenants in order to squeeze more profit for themselves. Abject, rapacious greed is not complex.



I meant to say it throws up many questions about the structure and viability of their business model and the underlying reasons why they may want to refuse HB tenants.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> I meant to say it throws up many questions about the structure and viability of their business model and the underlying reasons why they may want to refuse HB tenants.



OK, but someone up-thread explained it pretty simply; tenants on HB will have part or all of their ability to pay rent capped, and others won't.

Simples.[/quote]


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, but someone up-thread explained it pretty simply; tenants on HB will have part or all of their ability to pay rent capped, and others won't.
> 
> Simples.


[/quote]

Yes - and it was me who suggested it as a possible explanation (Post 229)!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

Yes - and it was me who suggested it as a possible explanation (Post 229)![/quote]


So why say it throws up many questions about their eviction of those on HB? It doesn't really, does it.

They are just very unpleasant people.


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 7, 2014)

> So why say it throws up many questions about their eviction of those on HB? It doesn't really, does it.
> 
> They are just very unpleasant people.



I never disputed that they are right bastards - look at the last but one sentence in Post 237.

I didn't say it throws up questions about why the Wilsons don't want to rent to people on HB. I said it throws up questions about their business model.

My comments about this aspect was part of a discussion with Spooky Frank about how viable the Wilsons' business actually is.

I'm not going to labour point but if you read my posts on this thread it's pretty clear where my sympathies lie - and it's not with the Wilsons.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> I never disputed that they are right bastards - look at the last but one sentence in Post 237.
> 
> I didn't say it throws up questions about why the Wilsons don't want to rent to people on HB. I said it throws up questions about their business model.
> 
> ...





> I meant to say it throws up many questions about the structure and viability of their business model _*and the underlying reasons why they may want to refuse HB tenants.*_



Must admit that i don't give a flying fuck about their 'business structure' or its viability; but yer did say...

Howsomedever...we all seem agreed that the wilsons are complete shitheads. Chirist-on-a-bike did anyone see them on tonight's C4 news? I really have tried to stop myself posting _that _pic of the chinese landlord being executed...but.....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

I still think letting the miserable cunt live would be a more horrible punishment.

I mean, did you see that picture of his wife? That one crawled out the shallow end of the gene pool and no mistake.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 7, 2014)

Fucking hell, can we attack him for his utterly loathsome politics, and not for what his _wife looks like_? Jesus_._ This place sometimes.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I still think letting the miserable cunt live would be a more horrible punishment.
> 
> I mean, did you see that picture of his wife? That one crawled out the shallow end of the gene pool and no mistake.


Let's not do that - criticise the appearance of his wife for crying out loud. 

Why is it always the woman/wife/girlfriend whose appearance is commented on? Nobody ever passes comment on the man's appearance, no matter what.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I mean, did you see that picture of his wife? That one crawled out the shallow end of the gene pool and no mistake.



Oh I see, he is a horrible, capitalist, discriminatory cunt because you don't find his wife attractive?

At the end of the day it's actually all her fault for not being attractive enough?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

If only all women were attractive to all men. All men would be better people as a result and the world would be a better place.


----------



## toggle (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I still think letting the miserable cunt live would be a more horrible punishment.
> 
> I mean, did you see that picture of his wife? That one crawled out the shallow end of the gene pool and no mistake.



let us now all express shock that an older woman looks like an older women, not a 20 year old supermodel


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

Yes yes jolly good let's just consider me told now shall we?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

What you mean he is not the evil one because some women will not find him attractive? Well I never!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

For the record I don't fancy him much either.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> What you mean he is not the evil one because some women will not find him attractive? Well I never!



Obviously that's what I meant because those were my exact words.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> For the record I don't fancy him much either.



Have you commented on his looks/attractiveness before now?


----------



## toggle (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> For the record I don't fancy him much either.



would his behavior be more palatable if he was more fanciable?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

toggle said:


> would his behavior be more palatable if he was more fanciable?



Yes, obviously. That's why I also said that, in those exact words.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes yes jolly good let's just consider me told now shall we?


I think you can safely consider that job done 

Anyway, stop distracting from the far more relevant matter of the gutter morals and social consciences of the pair of them!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

Anyone else got an even higher horse they'd like to get on? Jesus christ it was a careless remark not an actual point about the issues at hand. Any poster who has never done likewise and would like to hurl abuse at me, fill your fucking boots.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone else got an even higher horse they'd like to get on? Jesus christ it was a careless remark not an actual point about the issues at hand. Any poster who has never done likewise and would like to hurl abuse at me, fill your fucking boots.


You _could_ just apologise and try not to be casually sexist for lols again, but whatever


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone else got an even higher horse they'd like to get on? Jesus christ it was a careless remark not an actual point about the issues at hand. Any poster who has never done likewise and would like to hurl abuse at me, fill your fucking boots.




Who has abused you? I don't think anyone has have they? Parodied your casual sexism and attacked your casual sexism, yes.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone else got an even higher horse they'd like to get on? Jesus christ it was a careless remark not an actual point about the issues at hand. Any poster who has never done likewise and would like to hurl abuse at me, fill your fucking boots.


You haven't actually apologised for the careless remark.

Also, you know fine well the posters who commented on your remark haven't hurled abuse at you - you know what abuse looks like on urban.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Who has abused you? I don't think anyone has have they? Parodied your casual sexism and attacked your point, yes.



Parodies are supposed to be funny. They are also supposed to bear some relation to the thing being parodied, which all this ridiculous hyperbole does not.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

I disagree. But then I would wouldn't I?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Who has abused you? I don't think anyone has have they? Parodied your casual sexism and attacked your casual sexism, yes.



I consdier accusations of having said things I never said to be abusive, particularly when delivered with such righteous zeal.

I would have apologised by now but it's more fun to 'parody' all this indignation, so I'm going with that instead.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone else got an even higher horse they'd like to get on? Jesus christ it was a careless remark not an actual point about the issues at hand. Any poster who has never done likewise and would like to hurl abuse at me, fill your fucking boots.


I don't know if you're responding to my comment, which was intended as a lighthearted (and friendly) josh, and an opportunity to steer the thread back on topic.

I'm surprised you haven't encountered the - not unreasonable, IMO - position taken on Urban when people stray into this area before.

Take it on the chin, and move on - I like your posts, even if I don't agree with them all (and especially not That One ).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I consdier accusations of having said things I never said to be abusive, particularly when delivered with such righteous zeal.
> 
> I would have apologised by now but it's more fun to 'parody' all this indignation, so I'm going with that instead.




Ah so it's my fault you haven't apologised on account of me parodying your casual sexism and the essence of what your comment meant. Right, glad that's all clear.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> At the end of the day it's actually all her fault for not being attractive enough?



This, for example. You know perfectly well that's not what I said, you're presenting it like that to give yourself greater justification for kicking off. To what end only you can know, but it's certainly not for the sake of showing me the error of my ways or you'd have said something relevant to the error in question, not something you pulled out your arse to make me look bad.


----------



## toggle (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone else got an even higher horse they'd like to get on? Jesus christ it was a careless remark not an actual point about the issues at hand. Any poster who has never done likewise and would like to hurl abuse at me, fill your fucking boots.



care to show us evidence of this abuse?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Ah so it's my fault you haven't apologised on account of me parodying your casual sexism and the essence of what your comment meant. Right, glad that's all clear.



I'm responsible for whether or not I apologise. You're making me not want to. Does that clear the matter up?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I consdier accusations of having said things I never said to be abusive, particularly when delivered with such righteous zeal.
> 
> I would have apologised by now but it's more fun to 'parody' all this indignation, so I'm going with that instead.


Hardly righteous zeal! And you did poke fun at her appearance.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> This, for example. You know perfectly well that's not what I said, you're presenting it like that to give yourself greater justification for kicking off. To what end only you can know, but it's certainly not for the sake of showing me the error of my ways or you'd have said something relevant to the error in question, not something you pulled out your arse to make me look bad.




I haven't kicked off. You don't know what that looks like. I haven't made you look bad either, you've managed that on your own.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> This, for example. You know perfectly well that's not what I said, you're presenting it like that to give yourself greater justification for kicking off. To what end only you can know, but it's certainly not for the sake of showing me the error of my ways or you'd have said something relevant to the error in question, not something you pulled out your arse to make me look bad.



No, to be fair Rutita1 that's not what he said, he said letting Wilson live when he has to wake up to _that_ every morning would be a worse punishment than killing him, which I'm sure we can all agree is _much_ better.


----------



## toggle (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> This, for example. You know perfectly well that's not what I said, you're presenting it like that to give yourself greater justification for kicking off. To what end only you can know, but it's certainly not for the sake of showing me the error of my ways or you'd have said something relevant to the error in question, not something you pulled out your arse to make me look bad.



so objecting to sexism is now 'kicking off' and abuse'

that's us told girls, shall we all go back to the kitchen now?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 7, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> If only all women were attractive to all men. All men would be better people as a result and the world would be a better place.


{{{the world}}}


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Must admit that i don't give a flying fuck about their 'business structure' or its viability; but yer did say...quote]
> 
> You should be interested in their business model (and how viable or not it is) as it’s far more likely to bring their empire crashing down around their heads than any amount of ranting and name calling.
> 
> And if I wanted to prevent it happening again I’d want to understand exactly how people with no capital can build up a portfolio of 1,000 houses.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

weepiper said:


> No, to be fair Rutita1 that's not what he said, he said letting Wilson live when he has to wake up to _that_ every morning would be a worse punishment than killing him, which I'm sure we can all agree is _much_ better.



Well at least someone is paying attention.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Hardly righteous zeal! And you did poke fun at her appearance.



Yes I did. What I didn't do was blame her appearance for her husband's (and her own, they are also business partners) shitty behaviour, which is the implication several posters have since made.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

happie, that's badly OT.

But who is ugly?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes I did. What I didn't do was blame her appearance for her husband's (and her own, they are also business partners) shitty behaviour, which is the implication several posters have since made.





> * noun (plural parodies)*
> an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect:



HTH.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> that's badly OT.
> 
> But who is ugly?


Well, from what I've read of them, both the Wilsons are.

On the _inside_.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Well, from what I've read of them, both the Wilsons are.
> 
> On the _inside_.



I am the tee, you, (Sir), are the drive down the middle.

FORE!


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> happie, that's badly OT.
> 
> But who is ugly?



I'm not sure what's OT about anything I've posted and I've not commented on anyone's physical appearance - ugly or otherwise


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> I'm not sure what's OT about anything I've posted and I've not commented on anyone's physical appearance



No, that was me.

And even though you're a landlord I'm in more trouble for an offensive remark than you are for your entire parasitic lifestyle.

Just kidding.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> I'm not sure what's OT about anything I've posted and I've not commented on anyone's physical appearance - ugly or otherwise



On thread. Chill pill; I was joshing about Frank's beasting.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

Seriously, this ain't pretty....

http://bcove.me/wdxsm13o

ffs, I've watched it again now....they are both properly ugly inside.

"only if they draw attention to themselves to us" AAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

I hereby apologise for any remarks I made concerning anyone's appearance. I appreciate that this is in no way the issue at hand and that my remarks were inappropriate and discriminatory.

I invite those who brought this to my attention to consider the fact that if someone has said something which is in unacceptably poor taste, those remarks alone should be taken issue with, rather than some distorted version of them designed to provoke further outrage. In this manner the offending party will more easily be able to comprehend the nature of his transgression, the better to avoid causing further distress in the future.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Seriously, this ain't pretty....
> 
> http://bcove.me/wdxsm13o


Actually - and I'm not talking about her appearance - she does come across as the nasty one of the pair: she's the one doing the moralising and the drawing of broad brush conclusions about people, from - so far as I could tell - not much more than (ironically!) how they look...


----------



## weepiper (Jan 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Seriously, this ain't pretty....
> 
> http://bcove.me/wdxsm13o



'Employment is the passport to getting a house. Gone are the days when you could rely on housing benefit'.
What about the people like me who are both employed _and _reliant on housing benefit?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 7, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Actually - and I'm not talking about her appearance - she does come across as the nasty one of the pair: she's the one doing the moralising and the drawing of broad brush conclusions about people, from - so far as I could tell - not much more than (ironically!) how they look...



Yes, she's utterly vile and frankly no-one would mourn her if she were to tragically fall under a bus tomorrow.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 7, 2014)

weepiper said:


> 'Employment is the passport to getting a house. Gone are the days when you could rely on housing benefit'.
> What about the people like me who are both employed _and _reliant on housing benefit?


Then you are - by their lights - a benefit claimant, and you had better "keep your head down"


----------



## existentialist (Jan 7, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Yes, she's utterly vile and frankly no-one would mourn her if she were to tragically fall under a bus tomorrow.


It wouldn't be tragic. Apart from that, I agree with you 100%.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Actually - and I'm not talking about her appearance - she does come across as the nasty one of the pair: she's the one doing the moralising and the drawing of broad brush conclusions about people, from - so far as I could tell - not much more than (ironically!) how they look...



Maybe she just comes across worse because she's more able to string a sentence together?


----------



## Mungy (Jan 7, 2014)

jesus. ain't they obnoxious. my previous landlord was not dissimilar to them in attitude, it was only when i told them that i was going to be a few days late paying the rent one month that they had even noticed. that week they sent me a horrible letter saying how i was causing them financial hardship and that they were going to get the tenants liaison officer on to us. it backfired on the landlord as the tenant liaison officer got them to reduce the rent.


----------



## happie chappie (Jan 7, 2014)

weepiper said:


> 'Employment is the passport to getting a house. *Gone are the days when you could rely on housing benefit'*.



Rather an ironic statement as it appears her business has been at least partly reliant on housing benefit!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Actually - and I'm not talking about her appearance - she does come across as the nasty one of the pair: she's the one doing the moralising and the drawing of broad brush conclusions about people, from - so far as I could tell - not much more than (ironically!) how they look...



They both seem as nasty as eachother IMO. They certainly hold the same views even if they expressed them using different words in that clip.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 7, 2014)

What I found very sinister about what she said was the_  'only if they draw our attention to them'_ when refering to people who are oin receipt of HB benefit but not in arrears...that was a threat IMO.

Keep your head down.
Do not identify yourselves.
Do not criticise us/our decision.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

happie chappie said:


> Rather an ironic statement as it appears her business has been at least partly reliant on housing benefit!



I suspect he'll struggle to fill those properties after he's evicted HB claimants. By his own admission most of his stock is at the bottom end of the market.

Of course he may well have lots of tennants claiming housing benefit without his knowledge, as IIRC it's still possible to claim it without giving the council permission to contact your landlord. This might not be the same for all councils though.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I suspect he'll struggle to fill those properties after he's evicted HB claimants.



...if he insists on keeping his return to purchase price abnormally high...the rapacious fucker.

However, if he wanted to ensure occupancy he could lower the rent.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

weepiper said:


> 'Employment is the passport to getting a house. Gone are the days when you could rely on housing benefit'.




what a piece of shit. Living on the back of a 1000 rents- dead money taken from the labour of others- and giving it about employment?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> what a piece of shit. Living on the back of a 1000 rents- dead money taken from the labour of others- and giving it about employment?



Worse still, the absolute, fucking rank hypocrisy of two rentiers, benefitting fron massive quantities of state subsidy to capital, telling others to stand on their feet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Parodies are supposed to be funny. They are also supposed to bear some relation to the thing being parodied, which all this ridiculous hyperbole does not.



Just because you didn't find them funny, that doesn't mean that nobody else did.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

toggle said:


> so objecting to sexism is now 'kicking off' and abuse'
> 
> that's us told girls, shall we all go back to the kitchen now?



(((((kitchen)))))


----------



## toggle (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> (((((kitchen)))))



bastard


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

weepiper said:


> 'Employment is the passport to getting a house. Gone are the days when you could rely on housing benefit'.
> What about the people like me who are both employed _and _reliant on housing benefit?



It's also the case that for at least 20 of the last 30 years, employment *has not* been "the passport to getting a house" in any large town or city I can think of, money has, and more so now than ever.  If someone earning the median wage - if a couple earning the median wage (2 x approx £27,000) can only secure a mortgage of 3 x salary, then they can barely afford a studio flat in the south-east, or in your neck of the woods.
As usual, "teh capitalistz" don't know wtf they're talking about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Yes, she's utterly vile and frankly no-one would mourn her if she were to tragically fall under a bus tomorrow.



Well, maybe her children, but if they're anything like their parents, they're more likely to be rubbing their sweaty paws together.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

i could't even get a small flat in a shit new hi rise down the bay with shared ownership on a full time wage
circa £90/£100k


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Mungy said:


> jesus. ain't they obnoxious. my previous landlord was not dissimilar to them in attitude, it was only when i told them that i was going to be a few days late paying the rent one month that they had even noticed. that week they sent me a horrible letter saying how i was causing them financial hardship and that they were going to get the tenants liaison officer on to us. it backfired on the landlord as the tenant liaison officer got them to reduce the rent.



I hope you gave him the full Nelson Muntz:


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i could't even get a small flat in a shit new hi rise down the bay with shared ownership on a full time wage
> circa £90/£100k


 nice wage


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I suspect he'll struggle to fill those properties after he's evicted HB claimants. By his own admission most of his stock is at the bottom end of the market.



Problem for that theory being that Ashford is rammed, and rental and purchase prices are rising at similar rates to London (although they're still about 10-15% lower than London for comparable properties), because of the rail connection making the commute so much shorter (if you spring for the Javelin rather than the commuter service - 30 mins compared to just under an hour) than it was. 
So, even if his properties are in the grubbier neighbourhoods, he's still likely to find commuter renters.  Shit, you should see the numbers of people who commute from Norwich (twice as far away as Ashford) to London every day.  It's horrific how far London's "dormitories" now extend!


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

i meant the flat!
was on £16k


brogdale said:


> nice wage


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i meant the flat!
> was on £16k



I kinda knew....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Problem for that theory being that Ashford is rammed, and rental and purchase prices are rising at similar rates to London (although they're still about 10-15% lower than London for comparable properties), because of the rail connection making the commute so much shorter (if you spring for the Javelin rather than the commuter service - 30 mins compared to just under an hour) than it was.
> So, even if his properties are in the grubbier neighbourhoods, he's still likely to find commuter renters.  Shit, you should see the numbers of people who commute from Norwich (twice as far away as Ashford) to London every day.  It's horrific how far London's "dormitories" now extend!



I forgot about the high speed train link. 'Ashford International', lol.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 8, 2014)

existentialist said:
			
		

> I'm surprised you haven't encountered the - not unreasonable, IMO - position taken on Urban when people stray into this area before.



Or in the anarchist circles he moves in!


----------



## weepiper (Jan 11, 2014)

The more I read of this guy the more I hope one of his evicted tenants burns his house down

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/10/fergus-wilson-property-tycoon-mass-evictions?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## Lorca (Jan 11, 2014)

Apparently, among his many talents, Wilson is a prolific self published author of some dodgy looking books as well, would be amusing to read some epic trolling IDS style reviews of his work...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hildas-Alte...son-ebook/dp/B00FPKN3S6/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kinc_6


----------



## likesfish (Jan 11, 2014)

Eeew alternative history nazi romance 
 Not exactly something you'd want say the mail to do an expose on
   Can we prove its the landlord  shit ?
got to be a story in it at least?
 Nazis buy to let property the intenet porn its  daily mail bingo time


----------



## brogdale (Jan 11, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Eeew alternative history nazi romance
> Not exactly something you'd want say the mail to do an expose on
> Can we prove its the landlord  shit ?
> got to be a story in it at least?
> Nazis buy to let property the intenet porn its  daily mail bingo time


 Mirror maybe, but can't see 'the Heil' dishing any dirt on one of its own.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 11, 2014)

Lorca said:


> Apparently, among his many talents, Wilson is a prolific self published author of some dodgy looking books as well, would be amusing to read some epic trolling IDS style reviews of his work...
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hildas-Alte...son-ebook/dp/B00FPKN3S6/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kinc_6



Pass the brain bleach quick!


----------



## likesfish (Jan 11, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Mirror maybe, but can't see 'the Heil' dishing any dirt on one of its own.



No they turn on ome of thier own faster than a trod on corbra especailly if someones peddaling nazi porn look at poor old max mosley.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 11, 2014)

Lorca said:


> Apparently, among his many talents, Wilson is a prolific self published author of some dodgy looking books as well, would be amusing to read some epic trolling IDS style reviews of his work...
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hildas-Alte...son-ebook/dp/B00FPKN3S6/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kinc_6



What the fuck? I think you'd need some serious skills to be able to write a review that makes him look worse than that does on its own.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2014)

It's telling how we view property in the UK; 'he owns over a thousand houses!' rather than 'he has over a thousand mortgages!'

I hope the whole house of cards collapses around the cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2014)

Belushi said:


> It's telling how we view property in the UK; 'he owns over a thousand houses!' rather than 'he has over a thousand mortgages!'
> 
> I hope the whole house of cards collapses around the cunt.



either that or he is kicked to death by an enraged mob


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's also the case that for at least 20 of the last 30 years, employment *has not* been "the passport to getting a house" in any large town or city I can think of, money has, and more so now than ever.



Still possible here (LS12) - the odd house (not flat) for less than sixty if you have the skills to put the roof back on, have seen a flat for thirty something. A few friends have still been able to buy, generally paying between £75000 and £90000 for reasonably sound houses

About fifteen years ago there were tons of places in Leeds/Bradford for around £20,000, there were technicians at work who'd come on via youth training schemes that were getting mortgages in their late teens. It's a world away now.  Locally, the biggest thing screwing it over was BTL landlords snapping everything up (especially in the student areas) and pushing up prices - I was outbid twice by landlords before I got somewhere - in one case the place stayed empty for years after the landlord bought it too.  

It's gone beyond stupid now - it absolutely has to break somewhere.


----------



## maomao (Jan 11, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> It's gone beyond stupid now - it absolutely has to break somewhere.



I don't see that it has to break at all. People were screwed by landlords for centuries before the brief period of relative prosperity that allowed them to expect to be able to own their own house one day or at least earn a wage that covered more than rent and basic food provisions. Given most young people's attitude to politics and the economy these days I can't see any reason why we won't slip back into a society where the vast majority of accommodation belongs to a very small proportion of the population who screw their tenants for every penny they can spare and don't give a fuck if a large number of them end up homeless.

I'm on the point of buying a house (not on the new government scheme thank god, after many years and with some family help we've managed to scrape together a better deposit than that) and while I'm shit scared of interest rates going up, I'm even more scared of ending up in permanently insecure, low quality accommodation and having to pay just as much for it.


----------



## maomao (Jan 11, 2014)

The other thing that really winds me up about the UK attitude to housing these days is the constant use of the word 'property' to describe living accommodation as if its financial value is somehow more defining than the fact that you can fucking live in it.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 11, 2014)

maomao said:


> I'm even more scared of ending up in permanently insecure, low quality accommodation and having to pay just as much for it.



One of the most damaging things is that it'll create a population that's almost nomadic, shifting from one short term tenancy to another, kids shifting schools, massive waste generated with every move, no chance for communities to become settled and established, nobody knowing neighbours. Not good for mental health either having no security or ownership in even the loosest possible sense. Long-term council tenancies are disappearing as fast as affordable places to buy. The 'workforce' has to be mobile, flexible and above all not allowed to put down the kind of roots that might lead to getting organised against those who exploit them. There is a sense this is all deliberate, or maybe it's just a happy accident.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 11, 2014)

He's only thr editor some body else writes the rubbish so not sure you can get a story out of that had already started on my email to the daily mirror damm damm damm


----------



## Dowie (Jan 11, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I suspect he'll struggle to fill those properties after he's evicted HB claimants. By his own admission most of his stock is at the bottom end of the market.



He probably reads the daily mail and is counting on renting to the supposed millions of Romanians and Bulgarians who've apparently been flooding into the UK since the beginning of the month....


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 11, 2014)

I bet he's doing this at the behest of or in cahoots with tory developers of some kind. I don't think this is about renting to eastern europeans or employed people of desirable characer. I think it's about a political point. I bet this guy ends up standing for the tories soon.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 11, 2014)

He claims HB tenants have left him 800 grand in the hole?

I don't buy it.

He evicted someone on suspicioun of benefit fraud because they had two cars on their drive.

This guy is a fucking shit stirrer. It gets better!


> He talks of one tenant who fell into arrears, where the Wilsons obtained a court order to have his car seized and sold at public auction. "I'll tell you something he doesn't know. I went to the auction and bought it myself. It was a Land Rover Freelander. Nice car, and I got it at a good price."Ashford Council housing director Tracey Kerley talks of dealing with "the Fergus factor" in the local housing market.



Shameless piece of selfish heartless scum. Kindly die you tumourous excrescence.


----------



## kraepelin (Jan 11, 2014)

I hate when people do this but..haven't read the thread yet but

Why was the change made to pay to the renter instead of the land lord
Its almost like they wanted people to fuck up.

God if it was paid direct to me i would be homeless long ago


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 11, 2014)

It was partly to teach people to 'budget' (or fuck up) like Real Hardworking Families (TM) do. Also means you can whine that they're getting the money paid to them (along with the other thousands in benefits per week, the greedy feckless shits) and not the landlord.  I think also because it doesn't cover the full cost in many cases then the tenants would have to be making separate top-up payments anyway, which would be too big an administrative burden to add to the already hard graft of being a landlord


----------



## kenny g (Jan 11, 2014)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hildas-Alte...son-ebook/dp/B00FPKN3S6/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kinc_6 

Have a look inside. The man's character is shown in his gut. A greedy fat soulless waste of oxygen.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 11, 2014)

kraepelin said:


> I hate when people do this but..haven't read the thread yet but
> 
> Why was the change made to pay to the renter instead of the land lord
> Its almost like they wanted people to fuck up.
> ...



Just been discussing this IRL, and we think it was a deliberate attempt to engineer the situation that is happening now, where less and less landlords will accept tenants on HB, because it's too 'risky' for them to be interested in. Less landlords that will take HB = less HB to pay and more people desperate for a rental property and no downward pressure on rents.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 11, 2014)

maomao said:


> The other thing that really winds me up about the UK attitude to housing these days is the constant use of the word 'property' to describe living accommodation as if its financial value is somehow more defining than the fact that you can fucking live in it.



Has any one noticed that when politicians or the media talk about where poor people live - its about social 'housing' or 'accomodation' - but when they talking about rich people it is 'homes' or 'property'. 

I don't think a house can only be a home if you own it. Nor should people regard buying a house as a financial asset.


----------



## kraepelin (Jan 11, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Just been discussing this IRL, and we think it was a deliberate attempt to engineer the situation that is happening now, where less and less landlords will accept tenants on HB, because it's too 'risky' for them to be interested in. Less landlords that will take HB = less HB to pay and more people desperate for a rental property and no downward pressure on rents.



I've never heard any other reason that makes sense.

I think it was ViolentPanda who said that the reason they don't build council housing is more housing of any kind is downward pressure on house prices and no government who wants the middle class vote wants to see house prices go down

Fuck even if your good with money.if your living off £71 a week its going to be hard not to spend a few pound when the rent money comes in.


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 11, 2014)

Lorca said:


> Apparently, among his many talents, Wilson is a prolific self published author of some dodgy looking books as well, would be amusing to read some epic trolling IDS style reviews of his work...
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hildas-Alte...son-ebook/dp/B00FPKN3S6/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kinc_6


" Hilda is a naïve Scottish girl who falls for a Nazi officer overseeing the Lebensborn selective breeding programme. SS officers are trained to be unemotional. Will love conquer all?"
 That sounds like the worst shit ever


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 12, 2014)

Sounds like the Daily Mash!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 12, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> It was partly to teach people to 'budget' (or fuck up) like Real Hardworking Families (TM) do. Also means you can whine that they're getting the money paid to them (along with the other thousands in benefits per week, the greedy feckless shits) and not the landlord.  I think also because it doesn't cover the full cost in many cases then the tenants would have to be making separate top-up payments anyway, which would be too big an administrative burden to add to the already hard graft of being a landlord


People like him would still be complaining about 'scroungers' even if he was paid directly. In fact he'd probably find a way to abuse that, claiming he didn't get the money from the DWP that month and blaming the tenant, turfing him out before said tenant can do anything.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 12, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> " Hilda is a naïve Scottish girl who falls for a Nazi officer overseeing the Lebensborn selective breeding programme. SS officers are trained to be unemotional. Will love conquer all?"
> That sounds like the worst shit ever



Tbf the self published  area is full of real twisted shit this isnt anywhere near the bottle the nazi loving freak is only the alleged editor of this shit.
Fuck it going to email the mirror anyway got to be worth a para or two
Buy to let slumlord in Nazi sex novel shame


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> One of the most damaging things is that it'll create a population that's almost nomadic, shifting from one short term tenancy to another, kids shifting schools, massive waste generated with every move, no chance for communities to become settled and established, nobody knowing neighbours. Not good for mental health either having no security or ownership in even the loosest possible sense. Long-term council tenancies are disappearing as fast as affordable places to buy. The 'workforce' has to be mobile, flexible and above all not allowed to put down the kind of roots that might lead to getting organised against those who exploit them. There is a sense this is all deliberate, or maybe it's just a happy accident.



Quite apart from the points you make, the destruction or dissolution of communities is the destruction of solidarities, and that is indeed deliberate.


----------



## maomao (Jan 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite apart from the points you make, the destruction or dissolution of communities is the destruction of solidarities, and that is indeed deliberate.


Which is kind of full circle because the whole point (purposely, in the US at least) of providing the working classes with mortgages to buy houses was to give them more to lose if they went on strike and to make them less willing to go up against the system.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 12, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> " Hilda is a naïve Scottish girl who falls for a Nazi officer overseeing the Lebensborn selective breeding programme. SS officers are trained to be unemotional. Will love conquer all?"
> That sounds like the worst shit ever


Check the free sample - it's so bad that it could reassure anyone doubting that they've got any writing ability.


----------



## weepiper (May 2, 2014)

These cunts are at it again, evicting a man and his daughter because he asked them to fix his boiler

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/02/tenant-evicted-hot-water-landlord-wilson



> In a later call to the Guardian, Wilson, whose personal fortune is estimated at £180m and who is 453rd in the Sunday Times Rich List, said: "I get the sense Mr Koper is not English. I think he's got a bit of an understanding problem. We have staff who speak foreign languages, but Polish is not one of them.



Utter, utter filth.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2014)

The like was at the utter filth bit not the fellow getting chucked out of his house of course.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2014)

Apparently he punched an estate agent in another dispute over a boiler, represented himself in court, lost, refused to pay and reckons he's taking it to the crown court. Normally punching an estate agent would put him in my good books but this scumbag really needs to be killed. I say 'killed' rather than 'neckshot' or some other hyperbolic term because I mean it. I think he deserves to die.

http://www.folkestoneherald.co.uk/L...estate-agent/story-20954918-detail/story.html


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 2, 2014)

weepiper said:


> These cunts are at it again, evicting a man and his daughter because he asked them to fix his boiler
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/02/tenant-evicted-hot-water-landlord-wilson
> 
> ...


I really wish I hadn't read that after listening to kelvin Mackenzei on the radio.

FFS, we're all so powerless against these cunts.


----------



## Belushi (May 2, 2014)

He's the perfect illustration of why Landlords are always the first up against the wall.


----------



## existentialist (May 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> Apparently he punched an estate agent in another dispute over a boiler, represented himself in court, lost, refused to pay and reckons he's taking it to the crown court. Normally punching an estate agent would put him in my good books but this scumbag really needs to be killed. I say 'killed' rather than 'neckshot' or some other hyperbolic term because I mean it. I think he deserves to die.
> 
> http://www.folkestoneherald.co.uk/L...estate-agent/story-20954918-detail/story.html


And what kind of unrepentant cunt poses for a photo like this, when he's supposedly appealing the conviction?





Did anyone else think of Max Clifford, clowning behind the Sky reporter?

I hope they throw the fucking book at him.

ETA: I'd go a round with him. I say "a round", because I think he's the kind of shitbag who's only too happy to twat someone unsuspecting, but couldn't deliver on all the Queensberry-style posturing to save his fucking life.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> And what kind of unrepentant cunt poses for a photo like this, when he's supposedly appealing the conviction?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be fair (cause lets face it he's not and someone has to be) there's no interview with him in the story so the photograph was unlikely to have been taken to go with it. Nice choice of snap by the photo editor though and if it had have been possible it would have made him look like an even bigger cunt.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 2, 2014)

i'd kill him today if i thought i'd get away with it tbh.  fucking scum.


----------



## Quartz (May 2, 2014)

weepiper said:


> These cunts are at it again, evicting a man and his daughter because he asked them to fix his boiler



You called it. Utter cunt.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> And what kind of unrepentant cunt poses for a photo like this, when he's supposedly appealing the conviction?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With that kind of money in the bank, I doubt he cares, or even had to.


----------



## likesfish (May 3, 2014)

Jail him. 
 Or go on a camping holiday to say the ukraine and pick up a cheap holiday momento and introduce him to it from 300 metres or so*

*Of course i'm talking about some ukrainian folk painting rather than a dragnov sniper rifle and you should feel bad about thinking I'd suggest gut shooting this hard working capitalist hero and drinking vodka while he bleeds out.


----------



## Quartz (May 3, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> With that kind of money in the bank, I doubt he cares, or even had to.



Is that his wealth before or after mortgages are taken into account?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 3, 2014)

God knows. I'm sure he's sitting pretty either way.


----------



## Quartz (May 3, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> God knows. I'm sure he's sitting pretty either way.



If he's mortgaged to the hilt and his tenants were to organise a rent strike, he'd be severely inconvenienced. And wouldn't that be a shame?


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2014)

Well according to that article he's wanting to flog 50 2 bedroom properties in the area which suggests he's got cashflow problems. Given the size of the area he owns properties in it's probably enough to cause a local housing slump too. A quick look at his area on rightmove suggests it would more than double the amount of housing in that bracket on the market.


----------



## existentialist (May 3, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> God knows. I'm sure he's sitting pretty either way.


I seem to recall something coming out after the last time he got himself into the news which suggested that he's leveraged to the hilt, and only just servicing all his mortgages - he was trying to unload some properties, but as he has something of a local monopoly, that wasn't going so well.

I suspect he's one of that class of got rich quick(ish) types that doesn't actually understand money very well - on paper, he might be worth millions, but it's actually probably less use to him than if he had £20,000 cash sitting in the bank.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2014)

I wouldn't kill him, just give him two hard winters on the streets  in glasgow and let things take thier course


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I wouldn't kill him, just give him two hard winters on the streets  in glasgow and let things take thier course


With that amount of body fat? He could feed seal pups in the north sea and still survive!


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I wouldn't kill him, just give him two hard winters on the streets  in glasgow and let things take thier course


I was thinking of a quick bullet in the back of the head in a public place from a gang of men in balaclavas as a warning to other BTL scumbags.


----------



## editor (May 3, 2014)

maomao said:


> I was thinking of a quick bullet in the back of the head in a public place from a gang of men in balaclavas as a warning to other BTL scumbags.


Not sure that's entirely the kind of scenario that should be posted here. A little strong, perhaps. 

I'd just like him to fall spectacularly from grace and then experience the harsh unpleasantness and misery of evictions and homelessness.


----------



## Greebo (May 3, 2014)

maomao said:


> I was thinking of a quick bullet in the back of the head in a public place <snip>


That's your trouble - you're far too kind.  Let him live and let him suffer what he's been comfortable about inflicting on others.


----------



## existentialist (May 3, 2014)

Greebo said:


> That's your trouble - you're far too kind.  Let him live and let him suffer what he's been comfortable about inflicting on others.


The worst thing I feel it is possible to wish on anyone is insight. Sadly, given this man's track record, that's probably an extremely unlikely prospect. So yes, penury and a precarious existence at the hands of rentier landlords who'll shitcan the tenancy every time he has the temerity to question anything would be a fairly good substitute...


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2014)

editor said:


> Not sure that's entirely the kind of scenario that should be posted here. A little strong, perhaps.



I get what you're saying but I don't think that could seriously be taken as incitement to anything. I won't elaborate anyway.



Greebo said:


> That's your trouble - you're far too kind.  Let him live and let him suffer what he's been comfortable about inflicting on others.



You snipped the important half off my post. These people are engaged in a war against the working class and there has to be a fightback from somewhere, even though it's highly unlikely to come in the form that I described. Fergus Wilson is just the most ignorant, repugnant and publicity seeking example of a whole new class of people whose _raison d'être_ is enriching themselves by impoverishing us. If he does, through his own financial ignorance, have a tumble and end up going through what some of his tenants have been through it won't do anything to change the situation, in fact it would probably just lead to more legislation and more government help to cement their position.


----------



## Quartz (May 3, 2014)

maomao said:


> These people are engaged in a war against the working class



I find this difficult to believe. They're trying to profit from the working classes, not fight them.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2014)

no they despise the working man- he/she is a mug to them. And when they're gone, well, we breed like rabbits etc


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I find this difficult to believe. They're trying to profit from the working classes, not fight them.


It's a war. To relieve the working classes of the gains made over the last century and put us back in the position we were in before that; totally beholden to the landlord classes. Not just handing over our hard-earned but tugging our forelocks and saying thank you for the roofs over our heads.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 3, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I find this difficult to believe. They're trying to profit from the working classes, not fight them.


No they seek to profit from the system, not the people themselves. This couple didn't make money from the sweat of their brow, they borrowed from a bank (the very behaviour the poor are accused of with regard to the profligacy of credit pre 2008 that's all labour's and the unemployed's fault of course) and built a BTL empire on credit. The fact he can't be arsed to even do his job as a proper landlord and fix a problem in property he owns says it all. 

Though he's also turfing out all the HB tenants which makes me think he doesn't even care to play by even his own rules anymore. These people are so rich that nothing matters to them except whatever they choose to believe think or do. Hardworking tenant? Fuck you. Unemployed with nowhere else to go? Fuck you double. Foreign looking fella? Fuckski youski.


----------



## Belushi (May 3, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I find this difficult to believe. They're trying to profit from the working classes, not fight them.



The worlds most successful investor would disagree "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." Warren Buffet.


----------



## likesfish (May 3, 2014)

Not sure this cretin is even very good at class war
 He's expanded too fast and too local and become known.
A smarter person wouldnt have expanded so fast and made sure he wasnt a big fish in a small pond so if he had to sell properties he could.
 Now smaller versions of this git will be sensing blood in the water and take his empire apart at a massive discount bwhahahaha


----------



## Quartz (May 3, 2014)

Belushi said:


> The worlds most successful investor would disagree "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." Warren Buffet.



Hmm... von Clauswitz in reverse, eh?


----------



## ibilly99 (May 3, 2014)

Stuart Hall crossed with  Les Dawson in Fly experiment gone badly wrong..


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 3, 2014)

Jabba To Let


----------



## ibilly99 (May 3, 2014)

His 'views' make UKIP look like the epitome of rationality...

_"Basically my role as commissioner is more to do with the flavour of things. 
"The policies I make are the policies I make from the soundings of the people of Kent, so we will set up a forum where anybody can write in with their concerns."_

Don't think Urban was what he had in mind.

http://www.ashfordherald.co.uk/Mult...nds-election/story-15189315-detail/story.html


----------



## weepiper (Jul 7, 2014)

After all that, they're bloody well selling up anyway 



> After quitting the property market, Wilson said he will offer to help the government on housing policy.
> 
> "I might help sort out the Governments Housing Problem if they pay me enough money but I am not doing it for free! There is no magic wand to create overnight the number of houses required to overcome the Housing Crisis."



Cunts like you 'helping' the government on housing policy is why we have a housing crisis in the first place Fergus you deeply loathsome irredeemable oxygen thief.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 10, 2014)

Market top trigger - they're selling the lot...

http://www.theguardian.com/money/20...st-buy-to-let-landlords-sell-entire-portfolio


----------



## Greebo (Jul 10, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Market top trigger - they're selling the lot... <snip>


And they don't care who their tenants end up with, as long as the buyer offered the top price.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 10, 2014)

Greebo said:


> And they don't care who their tenants end up with, as long as the buyer offered the top price.





Greebo said:


> And they don't care who their tenants end up with, as long as the buyer offered the top price.



They would prefer them to be _*English*_ though.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 10, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> They would prefer them to be _*English*_ though.


_Their sort_ always do.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 10, 2014)

They could surprise us all as they are parsimonious by all accounts by leaving the bulk of their wealth to some noble cause. Wouldn't hold your breath though..


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2014)

> Tory councillor 'laments closure of workhouses' in meeting about mental health services
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ing-about-mental-health-services-9596685.html






maomao said:


> It's a war. To relieve the working classes of the gains made over the last century and put us back in the position we were in before that; totally beholden to the landlord classes. Not just handing over our hard-earned but tugging our forelocks and saying thank you for the roofs over our heads.


----------



## maomao (Jul 10, 2014)

treelover said:


> Tory councillor 'laments closure of workhouses' in meeting about mental health services
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ing-about-mental-health-services-9596685.html



To be fair: a) that's what Tory councillors are for, lamenting the closure of the workhouses and b) his actual words were apparently “Since the workhouses have been closed down, what has been put in their place? As far as I can see, nothing has been.” which out of context I would read as a critique of 21st century mental health provision rather than a cry to bring back workhouses.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 31, 2014)

They're back...from the Guardian:



> “I have taken the decision to evict all families with more than two children and also three-generation households,” said Fergus Wilson in a statement sent to the Guardian.



Apparently this creature thinks that he's being deceived: that people are moving into his properties (the nerve!) and then, by having kids (the nerve!) are pulling the wool over his eyes - somehow (the nerve!). 

And people on Zero Hours are being targeted as well.

What a sad greedy little turd.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 31, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> They're back...from the Guardian:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now if isis cut wankers like this head off or are dear leader tony.
  it could cause mass confusion.
  Cant really send them a decent single malt can you?
 Maybe a nice new knife instead


----------



## RedDragon (Oct 31, 2014)

I'm presuming he hasn't "evicted" anyone, just simply not renewed an Assured Shorthand Tenancy. I can't imagine any court giving him possession based on zero hour contracts or too many children.

What this wanker highlights is the total insecurity private sector tenants have these days.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

They really do deserve a road trip to Mulhouse with Rolf and Stefan.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 31, 2014)

neckshots.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 31, 2014)

enforced psytrance


----------



## Belushi (Oct 31, 2014)

Still desperately trying to sell his properties eh?

The twat spent years buying up all the rental properties in Ashford and has now caught on to the fact he was bidding against himself and can't flood the market without taking a haircut and if he's lucky breaking even.


----------



## RedDragon (Oct 31, 2014)

No serious company would give his portfolio a second glance, he'd need to sell it to another slime ball.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> enforced psytrance



Pfft.
Enforced psytrance with a ket and acid chaser.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> No serious company would give his portfolio a second glance, he'd need to sell it to another slime ball.



Unfortunately for him, most other slimeballs are too intelligent (in comparison to him, which isn't, I suppose, saying much!) to concentrate their resources in the way that he has done.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 1, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> No serious company would give his portfolio a second glance, he'd need to sell it to another slime ball.


They would at the right price, which might be why he hasn't sold it yet, the right price may be lower than he'd like.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pfft.
> Enforced psytrance with a ket and acid chaser.


but that would make the psytrance strangely enjoyable. If ket and acid were involved, I'd prescribe non-stop nosebleed gabba.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 1, 2014)

Bob_the_lost said:


> They would at the right price, which might be why he hasn't sold it yet, the right price may be lower than he'd like.


Possibly, but it would be a very inefficient labour intensive investment. He's probably mortgaged to fuck hence waiting for pre 2007/8 house prices. 

I'd very much welcome pension funds moving into the property market on a level they do in Germany.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 2, 2014)

free spirit said:


> but that would make the psytrance strangely enjoyable. If ket and acid were involved, I'd prescribe non-stop nosebleed gabba.


Add some stupidly potent mushrooms into the cocktail and I think we might have a winner!


----------



## likesfish (Nov 2, 2014)

What we need is a kickstarter to get longdog to dress up as a russian buisnessman and do a dodgy shekih takedown of this scumbag prefably  live on utube


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 2, 2014)

likesfish said:


> What we need is a kickstarter to get longdog to dress up as a russian buisnessman and do a dodgy shekih takedown of this scumbag prefably  live on utube



This is a great idea, except that longdog has far too resounding a Kent accent to pass for a Russian! 

Fergus Wilson reminds me faintly of Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, with his open contempt for his tenants and overtly selfish, fuck-you attitude.  Nasty piece of work.  Let's hope he loses a packet on his properties.



Nylock said:


> Add some stupidly potent mushrooms into the cocktail and I think we might have a winner!



Personally, I hope he's caught with his fingers in the till or similar and ends up doing time.  That'd bring him down a peg or two.


----------



## tbtommyb (Nov 2, 2014)

I think the key point from this story is the rental insurance.

Friends who are thinking of buying houses tell me that the mortgage lender puts on many requirements to limit the risk to the lender. I hear that for buy-to-let mortgages there are additional restrictions on the maximum length of tenancy and so on, so that the bank can get its asset back relatively quickly if need be. Never mind that anyone getting a mortgage is paying monthly interest payments that are meant in part to pay for the risk taken.

Something similar appears to be happening with rental insurance, in that the insurer will charge you a fee for them bearing the risk of a tenant's default, but then they'll force you to take all kinds of measures that minimise the risk of that anyway.

I think this is analogous to banks that lent at a high interest to heavily indebted countries and then viciously opposed any potential haircuts etc (i.e. the justification for the high interest rates).

We seem to be in a situation where capital is unwilling to take any risks and increasingly pushes the costs of risks onwards, whether that be to renters on zero-hour contracts who are shut out of the rental market or populations who have to endure austerity to pay bondholders. Yet capital still expects an additional payment for supposedly bearing risk.

From this article is appears that we've constructed a rental market that is primarily structured for the benefit of capital, not tenants or even landlords. Arguably Fergus Wilson is currently just a caretaker for his mortgage lenders, though he'll obviously do very nicely if he ever pays off the mortgages. But for now he is bound by the requirements of his lenders (though he could be less of a cunt about it, obviously).

I think this argument is basically Streeck's, though I haven't started his book yet. I think he discusses how countries like Greece have lost democracy to capital as their freedom has been limited by the troika's demand for them to repay debt.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

The buy-to-let-scum being the indebted nations here?  Maybe there's a campaign for you here tommy? Release the buy-to-let-scum from the pressure of capital. Even though they are its biggest beneficiary.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 3, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> This is a great idea, except that longdog has far too resounding a Kent accent to pass for a Russian!
> 
> Fergus Wilson reminds me faintly of Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, with his open contempt for his tenants and overtly selfish, fuck-you attitude.  Nasty piece of work.  Let's hope he loses a packet on his properties.
> 
> ...



Thats what  the kick starters for 
Voice coach armani suit flashy watch 
 Set of professional video kit


----------



## likesfish (Dec 16, 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...re-pay-3-000-council-tax-bill-properties.html


Oh dear how sad kent council want £3000 off them and last summer got told to fuck off trying to get a tenat to cough up for a new bathroom suite bwhahaha


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 10, 2017)

Battered landlord please:
Kent landlord bans 'battered wives' and single mothers from renting properties


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Battered landlord please:
> Kent landlord bans 'battered wives' and single mothers from renting properties


Utter scumbag.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 10, 2017)

> The 69-year-old defended his "latest criteria" for tenants, telling local media he does not want to risk "bully" ex-husbands or boyfriends returning to destroy his houses, and he dislikes plumbers because they "always rip him off".
> 
> When asked about the eleven stringent rules, which were distributed to agents in December and quickly leaked online, Mr Wilson told _Kent Online_ he "wasn't worried" about the backlash.
> 
> ...



Nice.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 10, 2017)

let him starve to death then


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 10, 2017)

Reminded me of this cunt who I thought was dead. But no such luck.



> 'The "homeless" – the majority of whom are so by their own volition or sheer laziness – are one of the filthiest burdens on the public purse today.
> 
> 'The chance of my offering an opportunity for them to occupy Hamilton Palace is just ludicrous.
> 
> 'Likewise, my offering accommodation to these Muslim "migrants" and to encourage their besiegement of our country and the unwarranted plundering of its resources is ridiculous. We should remove them all.'


----------



## maomao (Jan 10, 2017)

Still need shooting. Both of them.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 10, 2017)

what a fucking pig. he could sell up and spend the rest of his wretched life in absolute luxury  barbados, but he hangs in there, as if driven by the vitriol of lifelong hate and resentment. scum


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 10, 2017)

"We have said nothing against lesbians and homosexuals or coloureds"


----------



## Nylock (Jan 11, 2017)

maomao said:


> Still need shooting. Both of them.


Ideally from out of a cannon into the middle of the north sea...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2017)

Wilson isn't a "supremo" of anything except sociopathy, and all this story is, is a re-tread of his previous "I'm dead hard, me" bullshit publicity-seeking. Sack the geriatric cunt off to nick for a few weeks for not paying court-imposed fines, and let's see how tough he is then, surrounded by people he wouldn't let a home to.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 28, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> "We have said nothing against lesbians and homosexuals or coloureds"



His magnanimity in this regard has run dry it seems:



> Britain's biggest buy-to-let landlord has banned 'coloureds' from renting his properties because they make them smell of curry.
> 
> Having already banned battered wives and single mothers it was inevitable controversial tycoon Fergus Wilson would soon turn his attention to another innocent social group.
> 
> In an email to letting agent Evolution Properties the 69-year-old, of Boughton Monchelsea, said: "No coloured people because of the curry smell at the end of the tenancy."



Fergus Wilson bans 'coloureds' in letting directive


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 28, 2017)

scum


----------



## likesfish (Mar 28, 2017)

pretty sure thats going to drop him in the shit even the scum of evolution properties dont want to deal with him either.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 28, 2017)

money is a great motivator to get people to hide their distaste and chew back that vomit- if this arswipe truly has 1000 properties, then you will be out of a job if you lose that contract.dirty old fucker


----------



## likesfish (Mar 28, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> money is a great motivator to get people to hide their distaste and chew back that vomit- if this arswipe truly has 1000 properties, then you will be out of a job if you lose that contract.dirty old fucker



maybe they know the gigs up he's spreadsheet isnt as heathly as it once was .
 even letting agents have standards


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 28, 2017)

likesfish said:


> even letting agents have standards



Whilst I admire your faith in human decency I fear it may be misplaced in this instance.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 28, 2017)

never claimed letting agents were human decent or not .

the arse sounds like a complete nightmare as a customer and probably pays them late 
and just asked them to do something as illegal as hell.

now no doubt letting agents would do that if he wasnt a massive arse and hadn't sent them the letter in black and white.
 meanwhile they can get rid of him finally and get a few quid for shopping him to the papers


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 28, 2017)

There aren't any meaningful restrictions on who can be a private landlord in the UK are there? So even though Wilson is clearly breaking the law nothing will be done about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2017)

should be stabbed in the stomach then bricked up in the walls of one of his own houses.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 28, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> There aren't any meaningful restrictions on who can be a private landlord in the UK are there? So even though Wilson is clearly breaking the law nothing will be done about it.



Given the size of the industry and the potential for gerrymandering and corruption, it is the last free for all industry left with effectively zero regulation. Pretty scarey stuff


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 28, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Given the size of the industry and the potential for gerrymandering and corruption, it is the last free for all industry left with effectively zero regulation. Pretty scarey stuff



And an industry with a captive customer base. Landlordism is a cancer in this country.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 28, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> There aren't any meaningful restrictions on who can be a private landlord in the UK are there? .



As long as you're not poor it's ok.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 29, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> His magnanimity in this regard has run dry it seems:
> 
> 
> 
> Fergus Wilson bans 'coloureds' in letting directive


Looking at the comments on that article it appears he tried to run for police commissioner! 
There are silos full of chicken shit with more self-awareness than this crapulent oxygen thief...


----------



## xenon (Mar 29, 2017)

This cunt is still breathing?


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 29, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> There aren't any meaningful restrictions on who can be a private landlord in the UK are there? So even though Wilson is clearly breaking the law nothing will be done about it.



I sometimes wish that scummy Landlords who don't play by the rules would be banned from receiving payments from the state (including housing benefit). However, I recognise this would end up with less homes available for people on HB/UC, and get complicated if someone lost their job part way through a tenancy.

Someone on my street in Leeds illegally converted a four bed house to seven bedsits including cellar rooms with next to no natural light and no emergency exits.  After being grassed up by neighbours, Planning did carry out enforcement preventing them using the cellar rooms (they had to rip out some fittings), but another part of the council has placed problem tenants in the property as it's one of the few places willing to accept them. Still breaking rules (one person sleeps in a single bed in the shared kitchen), but then nobody else would house the people in there. The landlady's comment was that she didn't care what planning says as she was getting three grand a month from the place. There's nothing to stop her doing this, no blacklist of letters or agents.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 29, 2017)

Can this scumbag be nicked already. Surely there must be some racial or other discrimination laws he has broken by this point.

"Coloureds" ffs, in this day and age.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 29, 2017)

There's an idea in my town to start a landlord licensing scheme. There's a consultation document going round, and it's prefaced with some spiel about what an important contribution private landlords make to the city. The enforcement scheme for those who break the conditions of their licence will escalate from polite discussion to warnings to, eventually, prosecution.

What the document doesn't say is what laws landlords will be prosecuted under, how long they can expect to spend in prison for endangering the health and safety of tennants or unlawfully discriminating against them. A licensing system is a lovely idea but without rent controls or serious consequences for trangsressors it won't make a blind bit of difference. And it speaks volumes that before you can even hint at the idea of reining in landlords, you first have to grovel at their feet and tell them how great they are.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I sometimes wish that scummy Landlords who don't play by the rules would be banned from receiving payments from the state (including housing benefit). However, I recognise this would end up with less homes available for people on HB/UC, and get complicated if someone lost their job part way through a tenancy.
> 
> Someone on my street in Leeds illegally converted a four bed house to seven bedsits including cellar rooms with next to no natural light and no emergency exits.  After being grassed up by neighbours, Planning did carry out enforcement preventing them using the cellar rooms (they had to rip out some fittings), but another part of the council has placed problem tenants in the property as it's one of the few places willing to accept them. Still breaking rules (one person sleeps in a single bed in the shared kitchen), but then nobody else would house the people in there. The landlady's comment was that she didn't care what planning says as she was getting three grand a month from the place. There's nothing to stop her doing this, no blacklist of letters or agents.



ACORN
There is an embryonic Renters Union being run by the 'social enterprise' ACORN.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 30, 2017)

Continues to cover himself in rancid glory...

Britain's biggest landlord who banned 'coloured' people 'because of curry smell' says he's not racist


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 30, 2017)

skyscraper101 said:


> Can this scumbag be nicked already. Surely there must be some racial or other discrimination laws he has broken by this point.



To the best of my understanding, an act of discrimination in employment / housing (and so on) is a matter of civil law (the person discriminated against can sue for damages) not criminal law (where the person committing the act can be arrested)


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 31, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> To the best of my understanding, an act of discrimination in employment / housing (and so on) is a matter of civil law (the person discriminated against can sue for damages) not criminal law (where the person committing the act can be arrested)



So, people can still genuinely just list houses to rent with 'No blacks, no Irish...' etc and there'd be nothing the police could do about it. If true that is awful


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 31, 2017)

skyscraper101 said:


> So, people can still genuinely just list houses to rent with 'No blacks, no Irish...' etc and there'd be nothing the police could do about it. If true that is awful



The sign itself might fall foul of some law or other, but the policy behind it would not. Because government full of landlords init.


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2017)

People not mentioning that for many years NO DHSS(doesn't even exist in this form) has been normalised, you see ads even in vaguely leftish cafes, etc saying this, never any outrage.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 31, 2017)

treelover said:


> never any outrage.



What have you been doing about it?

Personally I know of campaigns to tackle this problem. Don't suppose you are outraged enough to be involved though eh?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 31, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The sign itself might fall foul of some law or other, but the policy itself would not. Because government full of landlords init.


On the other hand, the failure of a landlord to check the immigration status of a tenant _is_ a criminal offence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 1, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> On the other hand, the failure of a landlord to check the immigration status of a tenant _is_ a criminal offence.



Hands up all the English-accented white people who have never had their immigration status checked?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 1, 2017)

treelover said:


> People not mentioning that for many years NO DHSS(doesn't even exist in this form) has been normalised, you see ads even in vaguely leftish cafes, etc saying this, never any outrage.



I assume under universal credit you can still claim for housing costs without the DWP informing your landlord? In which case 'no DSS' is a pretty meaningless statement. 

And yes, the reference to 'DSS' is an anachronism which still clings on in landlord-ese for some reason. Not unlike 'coloureds' and 'negroes'.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I assume under universal credit you can still claim for housing costs without the DWP informing your landlord? In which case 'no DSS' is a pretty meaningless statement.
> 
> And yes, the reference to 'DSS' is an anachronism which still clings on in landlord-ese for some reason. Not unlike 'coloureds' and 'negroes'.



Landlords figure out this stuff through background checks though


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Landlords figure out this stuff through background checks though



Benefits stuff, finances and so on are all confidential though surely? I know I've successfully bullshitted several landlords and agents about my employment and/or financial status. All they can really do is a credit check.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Benefits stuff, finances and so on are all confidential though surely? I know I've successfully bullshitted several landlords and agents about my employment and/or financial status. All they can really do is a credit check.


Nah mate I keep getting asked for bank statements


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 2, 2017)

muscovyduck said:


> Nah mate I keep getting asked for bank statements



But they have to get this information directly from you, they can't go to the bank and get it, nor can a credit reference agency give them detailed information on your finances. 

But yeah, it now seems pretty common for letting agents to ask you for bank statements, especially if you're self employed. Yet another reason these fuckers need to be properly regulated, if not removed from existence altogether.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 2, 2017)

Housing Benefit takes up to 6 weeks to come through, so unless you're in a position to pay your deposit and first two months rent up front by yourself, you're going to need a landlord that takes Housing Benefit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 2, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Housing Benefit takes up to 6 weeks to come through, so unless you're in a position to pay your deposit and first two months rent up front by yourself, you're going to need a landlord that takes Housing Benefit.



You can't claim HB in advance though, so you have to find your deposit and first rent payments yourself anyway.


----------



## editor (May 18, 2017)

The net is closing on this racist scumbag. The quicker this cunt pops his clogs the better. 



> The equality watchdog has begun formal legal action against buy-to-let mogul Fergus Wilson after he told his letting agent to ban “coloured” tenants because they left curry smells in his properties.
> 
> It emerged in March that Wilson, who owns almost 1,000 homes across Ashford and Maidstone in Kent, emailed a local letting agency, Evolution, saying: “No coloured people because of the curry smell at the end of the tenancy.”
> 
> ...



Buy-to-let millionaire who bans 'coloured' people faces legal action


----------



## Sue (May 19, 2017)

editor said:


> The net is closing on this racist scumbag. The quicker this cunt pops his clogs the better.
> 
> 
> 
> Buy-to-let millionaire who bans 'coloured' people faces legal action


Amen to that. Utter scum.


----------



## NoXion (May 19, 2017)

Hope the fuckface gets taken to the cleaners.


----------



## scifisam (May 19, 2017)

So that's

No smokers 
No pets
No tenants on HB
No single mothers or fathers
No parents of under-18s at all
No battered wives 
No grandparents living with their adult children
Nobody on a low income
Nobody on a zero hours contract
No plumbers
Nobody named Wilson
No "coloureds" 

Have I missed anything? 

He seems to think he's in a 70s sitcom. Hopefully it'll turn out to be Porridge.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 19, 2017)

scifisam said:


> So that's
> 
> No smokers
> No pets
> ...



Are you in there sonny?

Isn't everyone?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2017)

suprised he hasn't articulated his policies on jewish and irish people


----------



## existentialist (May 19, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> suprised he hasn't articulated his policies on jewish and irish people


"The PC brigade don't like you saying this, but I am a courageous speaker of truth. Now, these Jews..."


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 20, 2017)

editor said:


> The net is closing on this racist scumbag. The quicker this cunt pops his clogs the better.
> 
> 
> 
> Buy-to-let millionaire who bans 'coloured' people faces legal action



Representing himself and confident of victory. Yeah mate, good luck with that.


----------



## likesfish (May 21, 2017)

Fuckwits about to discover the court room is not the golf club  bar where you can shout your mouth off and the people will agree with you *


* some golfers may not be classist racist scumbags but you can be sure fergus found a club that is full of them


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

He's been taken to court for his racist letting policy, which has been ruled unlawful. He's being served an injunction, though I'm not sure what exactly that entails, if anyone more versed in housing law could elucidate?
Landlord's ban on 'coloured' tenants is unlawful, court rules


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> He's being served an injunction, though I'm not sure what exactly that entails, if anyone more versed in housing law could elucidate?


So the rancid old cunt has been served an injunction (court order) saying that he can no longer discriminate against Indians and Pakistanis (although it'll be broader than that). If he's found to be in breach of it in the future he can be done for contempt of court and persistent piss-taking could land him in prison. Fingers crossed.


----------



## StoneRoad (Nov 8, 2017)

'Curry smell' tenant ban unlawful

more coverage, the beeb news site this time.

This character is nasty so-and-so . I just wish that somehow his holdings could be "nationalised" and used to at least partly solve the housing crisis, by being let at truly affordable real cheap social housing rents. (I assume that at least part of his "portfolio" will be vacant, as an investment tool - ie scarcity pushes up the price)


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

I'm still unclear why it took a court case to decide that this was unlawful - surely it is already explicitly against the law?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

StoneRoad said:


> 'Curry smell' tenant ban unlawful
> 
> more coverage, the beeb news site this time.
> 
> This character is nasty so-and-so . I just wish that* somehow his holdings could be "nationalised" *and used to at least partly solve the housing crisis, by being let at truly affordable real cheap social housing rents. (I assume that at least part of his "portfolio" will be vacant, as an investment tool - ie scarcity pushes up the price)


It's the centenary of the October revolution right now. Just saying.


----------



## StoneRoad (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan - yeah, I know;
come the revolution, this thug would be one of the first up against t'wall (or alternatively. swinging from a convenient lampost)


----------



## shifting gears (Nov 8, 2017)

The disgusting lump only had to pay £2.5k in costs as well, sickening [emoji35]


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm still unclear why it took a court case to decide that this was unlawful - surely it is already explicitly against the law?


What's happened is that the EHRC have made a complaint to him (probably after having the arsehole referred to them by a disgruntled punter) saying that what he was doing was unlawful and that he should undertake to change his ways. He told them to get stuffed.

He disputed that he was doing anything wrong on some random, deranged points, as mentioned in your article. He's basically a silly old turd taking the view that 'they're my properties, I'll rent them to who I like'. So he got his day in court to plead his case, as is his right, but was told to get fucked by the judge who ruled for the EHCR, made the injunction and awarded costs.


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Nov 8, 2017)

The most hated man in Boughton Monchelsea. Sadly he, his wife and now his daughter, seem to have no awareness of what the world think of them.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm still unclear why it took a court case to decide that this was unlawful - surely it is already explicitly against the law?


I think the question arising was whether it was racial discrimination (unlawful) or some other form of restriction. To me, it was pretty obvious, especially given the language he was using around it, but I suppose it makes sense for a little trouble to be gone to in order to ensure a watertight judgement.

He doesn't really have any wriggle room on it now.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

Far be it from me to suggest vigilantism, but if anyone was deserving of some rough music, followed by a spell in a pillory or the stocks, it's him.


----------



## xenon (Nov 8, 2017)

This cunt is still, still alive?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 11, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> He's been taken to court for his racist letting policy, which has been ruled unlawful. He's being served an injunction, though I'm not sure what exactly that entails, if anyone more versed in housing law could elucidate?
> Landlord's ban on 'coloured' tenants is unlawful, court rules




As I understand it he faces no penalty for his actions and is merely being asked to not be overtly racist in future.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 11, 2017)

There was a consultation here recently about a licensing scheme for private landlords. My comment on it was it will be a waste of time and resources unless there are genuine consequences for landlords who fail to provide a decent standard of housing or fail to treat their tennants fairly. 

What's needed is the genuine prospect of total financial ruin for crooked shits like Wilson.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 11, 2017)

state seizure of the asset for use as social housing

flat 50% gross tax on the rents of all other properties for three years, a condition that travels with the property if sold during that period. Or y'know, the salt mines


----------



## Sue (Nov 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> state seizure of the asset for use as social housing
> 
> flat 50% gross tax on the rents of all other properties for three years, a condition that travels with the property if sold during that period. *Or *y'know, the salt mines



Going soft in your old age..? And, surely?


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2018)

They pick up a 25 grand fine for not supplying hot water to a disabled tennant and threaten to flood the Ashford housing market again.

Landlord fined £25,000 over lack of hot water for disabled tenant

I really can't think of a way of dying that would be horrible enough for them.


----------



## alex_ (Dec 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> They pick up a 25 grand fine for not supplying hot water to a disabled tennant and threaten to flood the Ashford housing market again.
> 
> Landlord fined £25,000 over lack of hot water for disabled tenant
> 
> I really can't think of a way of dying that would be horrible enough for them.



“In a statement, Fergus Wilson said: “Following my wife’s conviction for not restoring hot water without due course she immediately withdrew from letting further houses in Ashford and has greatly accelerated the disposal of her portfolio.

“This will result in a flooded market in Ashford and a drop of house prices by £50,000 to £100,000. That means all houses of Ashford residents will fall by the same figure.”

This is pathetic, and also a cast iron, stone cold lie.

Ashford has a population of 80k, there are say 20k houses/flats in ashford say 50k in the “ashford area”, average house prices in Ashford are 330k, and their tenants will be evenly spread across 12 month leases.

They own 300 of 50,000 houses, 0.6% of  housing - in any month she can put 0.05% of the housing on the market.

This is meant to take between 1/7 and 1/4 off house prices...

We also know they are greedy, racist cunts, they’d rather give their money to immigrants than sell out in a way which costs them money.

Alex


----------



## 8ball (Dec 13, 2018)

This makes me want to saw this cunt’s feet off.


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> This makes me want to saw this cunt’s feet off.


With a blunt plastic knife, smothering with salt as you go? I suppose that's a start.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 13, 2018)

what Awful lives these vindictive fuckers must lead


----------



## alex_ (Dec 13, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> what Awful lives these vindictive fuckers must lead



The funny thing is he cares about losing, otherwise he’d not have done the pathetic fact free rant.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 13, 2018)

Cannot imagine being a multi millionaire at that age and being so utterly nasty- he’s got a couple of years left of his life , FFS do some good


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2018)

These people should have their properties taken. Apparently it's not beyond councils power to put them into a managed program where the rent is paid to the council, they carry out all necessary works and return any surplus cash to the landlord. This should happen to these cunt's entire portfolio.

And dumping 300 properties on the market isn't going to have much effect on other prices unless they put them on the market at significantly below their actual value. Even then it would be a temporary blip whilst everyone snapped up _their_ cheap houses.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> I really can't think of a way of dying that would be horrible enough for them.


We watched_ Law Abiding Citizen_ last night. Shit film but there's a pretty satisfying execution method in it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Cannot imagine being a multi millionaire at that age and being so utterly nasty- he’s got a couple of years left of his life , FFS do some good



I wonder how many people are working how many hours out of their lives just to put money in this fucker's pocket. And all for nothing, it's not even making him happy. Shooting him in the throat would be a kindness, miserable arsehole that he is.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 13, 2018)

now if I was a bit smarter I'd fake an invite to buck house for the new years honors for this loathsome cretin because he'd fall for it then invite the media to watch


----------



## Gromit (Dec 13, 2018)

You've got it all wrong. They are saints.

Property prices are disgusting high making it difficult for the young to get on the ladder etc etc.

They are willing to sell their entire property portfolio for less (instead of maximum profit) in order to lower the market to more affordable levels for everyone else. Gawd bless em.


----------



## Budgie451 (Dec 14, 2018)

Landlords these days don't need housing benefit people, simple as that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2018)

Budgie451 said:


> Landlords these days don't need housing benefit people, simple as that.



'Housing benefit people' constitutes a vast swathe of the population, the majority of them in work IIRC.


----------



## Budgie451 (Dec 14, 2018)

True, but landlords don't 'need' them - plenty of other people around to pay the rent.

this is basically Labour's fault


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 14, 2019)

Selling up...

Families facing homelessness after tycoon issues eviction notices


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 14, 2019)

vile fucker


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> vile fucker


I wish they'd stop calling him "property tycoon" in the captions to his photo.

"Latter-day Rachman" might be slightly more appropriate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2019)

The residents of Ashford out to tar and feather him and parade him around town in a charivari


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 14, 2019)

existentialist said:


> "Latter-day Rachman" might be slightly more appropriate.



or "cunt" for brevity


----------



## Edie (Jan 15, 2019)

*Look* at the fucking state of him.



Only a complete and utter cunt would issue no-fault eviction notices to hundreds of people in the same area simultaneously. And then bleat on about how it isn’t his fault because he doesn’t make the law and it’s those Eastern European immigrants.

Actually, it is *directly* your fault you fat cunt, cos you bought up all them houses and drove up property prices. Then you don’t stagger your eviction notices so as not to flood the market with desperate tenants (cos obviously you need ALL your money now).

And then you don’t offer your tenets longer if they can’t find somewhere, you just shrug and acknowledge that yeah it probably will destroy their lives. If his heart was anywhere _near_ approaching the size of his gut he’d realise this was the only decent thing to do.

I really wanted to start a thread called The Wall with this cunt as post number 1. but I resisted.

But just _look_ at him.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2019)

Looking at him, not only is he a cunt but he _knows _he is .. in fact he's _proud _of what a cunt he is.

What is a comrade to do with such a one? That bulbous gut is begging for a target to be painted on it...


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 15, 2019)

Edie said:


> Actually, it is *directly* your fault you fat cunt ...


 I don't think we're allowed to refer to his weight but in this case it's hard not to, innit?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2019)

I want to point out that his cuntiness and his weight are two different things.

I will be making no reference to it when I saw his feet off with a blunt plastic knife.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2019)

Edie said:


> *Look* at the fucking state of him.
> 
> View attachment 158777
> 
> ...


But he's fucking loving it. I expect he thinks he looks stern and uncompromising, rather than an obese cunt with a hedgehog rammed up his arse.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2019)

Actually, I say "fucking loving it", but...

What has to be wrong with someone that they not only think it's all great and wonderful to treat people like dirt, but have the desire to proudly telegraph that behaviour to all and sundry?

I think it's quite likely that Fergus (and his equally charmless wife) are bitter, resentful people who are utterly dissatisfied with their lives, and have sought to feel better by amassing property in wealth, and now can't admit to themselves that even that isn't making them happy.

So, in just the way that bullying everywhere works, they tried to make themselves happier by making other people more miserable, and that not having worked, they've moved on to telling the world how much better than everyone else he is, and why. It is a personal tragedy - albeit one unrecognised by Fergie The Chub and his poisonous spouse - that all this discontent and rage hasn't prompted an aneurysm that would have put him out of his misery, instead of which he has to continually remind the media, and therefore the rest of us, who he is, mostly via threats to show how important he is by flogging off his property empire (having failed to convince anyone, including himself, of his importance by amassing it in the first place).

He's basically the rentier equivalent of the kid who picks up his ball and flounces off home because everyone won't let him win.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2019)

existentialist said:


> I think it's quite likely that Fergus (and his equally charmless wife) are bitter, resentful people who are utterly dissatisfied with their lives, and have sought to feel better by amassing property in wealth, and now can't admit to themselves that even that isn't making them happy.



Nah, some people are utter cunts and very happy that way.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> Nah, some people are utter cunts and very happy that way.


I'm not entirely convinced 

I much prefer to think that utter cunts are deeply miserable, and just hiding it under a veil of cuntitude.

If nothing else, it enables me to behave much more annoyingly towards them...


----------



## wiskey (Jan 15, 2019)

existentialist said:


> But he's fucking loving it. I expect he thinks he looks stern and uncompromising, rather than an obese cunt with a hedgehog rammed up his arse.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2019)

existentialist said:


> I'm not entirely convinced
> 
> I much prefer to think that utter cunts are deeply miserable, and just hiding it under a veil of cuntitude.



You *prefer* to think that way.  Doesn't make it true. 
I tend to think that a lot of "nice people" are deeply miserable because their have to hide their inner cuntitude under a veil of niceness.

You can tell them by they way they behave once they get behind the wheel of a car.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> I want to point out that his cuntiness and his weight are two different things.


he looks like a caricature of a capitalist. Put a stovepipe hat on him and he'd be straight out of an early 20th century cartoon lol


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 15, 2019)

If he's evicting hundreds of people at once, he'll be beyond fucked if they all refused to leave. Can't sell, can't pay all the mortgages either.

Did you hear that, tennants of Fergus Wilson? Just stay put. Join forces with all the others and stay put. The cunt will be ruined by easter.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> he looks like a caricature of a capitalist. Put a stovepipe hat on him and he'd be straight out of an early 20th century cartoon lol



He'd be straight out of Thomas the tank engine.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 15, 2019)

I too live in fervent hope that scum like him will one day face up to the brutal reality of their callous actions.

The fact that this is unlikely to happen soon is one of the most damning indictments of capitalism. Venal filth like him have power over people because of property.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> Nah, some people are utter cunts and very happy that way.



The man's a racist. You don't get happy racists as a rule.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> The man's a racist. You don't get happy racists as a rule.



I think this is more wishful thinking.  I don't dispute that they make others miserable, though.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> I think this is more wishful thinking.  I don't dispute that they make others miserable, though.



I dunno, whenever I look at places where racists feel they can speak openly, they seem to be mostly whinging about how their day was ruined by someone daring to exist.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2019)

NoXion said:


> I dunno, whenever I look at places where racists feel they can speak openly, they seem to be mostly whinging about how their day was ruined by someone daring to exist.



Yeah, but I think there's a longing for some kind of karma that leads us to imagining that this doesn't make them happy.  They have a common enemy and a tribe and a nice simplistic view of the world and the causes of all their problems, plus a fantasy of it all being ok at some point in the future, like it was in the past before the Bad Thing.

Quite comforting, really.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jan 15, 2019)

There's also this...



> Attention will now turn to the new powers that councils have to add names to the rogue landlord database, which prevents a landlord from letting their property either themselves or by using an agent. However, councils face a long process to add names to the database, and the Guardian reported in October that the database remained empty six months after its launch.



A database that only councils would have access to anyway.
Shelter Legal England - Rogue landlord database

Also... 



> Evictions from private rentals are now the cause of 27% of homelessness. Last summer, the government floated the idea of introducing minimum three-year tenancies
> but has not done it.
> 
> The private rented sector has doubled in size over the past decade and provides a home to one in every five households in the country. One in four families with children are now privately renting, up from one in 10 a decade ago.



_Ten years._ 

I absolutely fucking _despise_ BTL landlords - the level of entitlement, whether it's one property or hundreds. It's a despicable, shameful business - nothing but a cunts game.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 15, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> A database that only councils would have access to anyway.
> .



Lots of vulnerable folk may have very good reasons for not reporting a landlord to the ccouncil. And of course people wih little recourse to state support are exactly the people slum landlords love to prey on.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> He'd be straight out of Thomas the tank engine.



nah, more like a Punch caricature ...

whatever, he's one ulgy barsteward, with behaviour to match.
pity his extreme cunitude hasn't given him fatal indigestion / apoplexy ...


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jan 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lots of vulnerable folk may have very good reasons for not reporting a landlord to the ccouncil. And of course people wih little recourse to state support are exactly the people slum landlords love to prey on.



It was a slightly stupid response of mine, imagining that prospective tenants could _see_ the list - when the purpose of the list is to ensure that their properties wouldn't be available in the fist place - I get it. 

It's a good idea, obviously, but I'm wondering whether cash-strapped councils just don't have the funding to implement it (and the ones that have the money to pursue it don't give a fuck anyway)

Why _did_ Ashford council proceed with the case? 
Was it because it was so obviously _wrong_, or was it because they weighed up the financial loss in proceeding with a legal case, against what would be drawn back in HB payments on those properties, made to a single landlord, who owns a comparatively large amount of private housing within that area - who is very obviously dodgy as fuck - along with the cost of the council making repairs themselves and then attempting to claim them back?

Dunno if that makes proper sense - I just doubt that (empty) 'rogue landlord' list will ever work when most private tenants are renting from people with a far smaller 'portfolio', however awful those landlords are.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 15, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> It's a good idea, obviously, but I'm wondering whether cash-strapped councils just don't have the funding to implement it (and the ones that have the money to pursue it don't give a fuck anyway)


Both of the above IME. Even with massively obvious cases and relatively sympathetic councillors, nothing ever seems to happen. The tiny number of "rogue landlord" cases that get into the press are really the tiniest proportion of the total. It's probably a good thing that more landlords don't realise quite how much they can just do whatever they want and get away with it.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jan 15, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's probably a good thing that more landlords don't realise quite how much they can just do whatever they want and get away with it.



Yes. I really despair.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 16, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Both of the above IME. Even with massively obvious cases and relatively sympathetic councillors, nothing ever seems to happen. The tiny number of "rogue landlord" cases that get into the press are really the tiniest proportion of the total. It's probably a good thing that more landlords don't realise quite how much they can just do whatever they want and get away with it.



There needs to be a blacklist for tennants, by tennants. As it is you're taking a massive gamble every time you sign a contract to give half your earnings to some person about whom you know nothing besides the fact they consider themselves entitled to half your income.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 16, 2019)

8ball said:


> He'd be straight out of Thomas the tank engine.


The fat controller is nowhere near that fat. More like the plump controller.


----------



## Wookey (Jan 18, 2019)

Great blog on Fergus Wilson just out from John Bibby at Shelter...this guy is just shockingly bad, but should be used as a benchmark for protecting tenants' rights.



> *‘Britain’s most hated landlord’*
> 
> Wilson’s recent announcement that he was evicting 90 tenants and plans to evict many more is only the most recent entry in a long rap sheet of priors that will have caused genuine and lasting damage to his tenants’ lives.
> 
> ...




​


​https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2019/01/dont-just-vilify-fergus-wilson-use-him-to-justify-change/



​


​


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 18, 2019)

I'd take issue with 'successfully challenged in the courts' as regards his racist policies. A success would have been the man put out of business for good, what actually happened was that he was asked nicely not to be overtly racist in future, although of course there's no way to compel him to rent his properties to anyone.


----------



## Wookey (Jan 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'd take issue with 'successfully challenged in the courts' as regards his racist policies. A success would have been the man put out of business for good, what actually happened was that he was asked nicely not to be overtly racist in future, although of course there's no way to compel him to rent his properties to anyone.



See your point - the legal challenge was successful, but yes, real success would be much bigger and probably _illegal_ come to think of it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 18, 2019)

Wookey said:


> See your point - the legal challenge was successful, but yes, real success would be much bigger and probably _illegal_ come to think of it.



It wasn't a criminal case, but it should have been.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 18, 2019)

Edie said:


> And then you don’t offer your tenets longer if they can’t find somewhere, you just shrug and acknowledge that yeah it probably will destroy their lives. If his heart was anywhere _near_ approaching the size of his gut he’d realise this was the only decent thing to do.



It's a shame his heart isn't the size of his gut -he'd be dead within a week....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 20, 2019)

Council pays rogue landlord £500,000 in housing benefit



> Bernard McGowan, who boasts a £30m property empire and was convicted six times under the Housing Act between 2014 and 2017, failed Brent council’s “fit and proper” test in 2015. The decision meant that McGowan was barred from directly renting out houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) across Brent, or any home in eight of the borough’s wards where landlords specifically require a licence.
> 
> However, after a freedom of information (FoI) request made by the Guardian, Brent has revealed how it has continued to hand McGowan public money for renting out homes since it banned him.
> 
> The payments have included publicly funded rents for McGowan properties in wards where no landlord is allowed to operate without a licence, meaning the legislation should prevent McGowan from directly receiving rents for homes in those areas.


----------



## Riklet (Jan 21, 2019)

Absolute scum. How are these shameless cunts still getting away with it?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jan 21, 2019)

> Bernard McGowan, who boasts a £30m property empire and was convicted six times under the Housing Act between 2014 and 2017, failed Brent council’s “fit and proper” test in 2015. *The decision meant that McGowan was barred from directly renting out houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) across Brent, or any home in eight of the borough’s wards where landlords specifically require a licence.*
> 
> However, after a freedom of information (FoI) request made by the Guardian, Brent has revealed how it has continued to hand McGowan public money for renting out homes since it banned him.
> 
> *The payments have included publicly funded rents for McGowan properties in wards where no landlord is allowed to operate without a licence,* meaning the legislation should prevent McGowan from directly receiving rents for homes in those areas.



This is confusing. My understanding is that HMO's (three or more people sharing a privately rented property, with shared facilities and who are not related to each other*) ALWAYS require a licence now but that for any other properties, they didn't.
I did a bit of further reading (which I can't find now  ) which says that some councils also require a licence for ALL properties. 
Is that right?
Either way, what's the deal here? Does 'councils' elsewhere, translate to 'wards', within London - and is that just for HMO's or ALL properties?

I'm asking cos it looks like a bit of a LOL ok no HMO's then (which I see everywhere locally to me now, in Brighton, places being advertised to a max of two sharers or families only) but where that would be a very shit 'punishment' for that LL - okay, I'll just rent to families and continue to scoop in the HB.






> Jacky Peacock, a director of the tenants’ charity Advice4Renters, which has helped residents bring cases against McGowan, said: “I simply despair. This is yet another example of one part of the council not speaking to another. Of course it has to be wrong for a landlord who cannot be defined as a ‘fit and proper manager’ to be receiving the rent. We will never see meaningful regulatory improvements in private renting until there is a joined-up, council-wide approach.
> 
> “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the circumstances have existed which should have created a duty for Brent to serve an IMO [interim management order] on most if not all of McGowan’s properties”.
> 
> Under the Housing Act, a council has the duty to impose an IMO on certain properties, in order to protect the occupiers or to take “steps the authority thinks appropriate with a view to the proper management of the house”. That includes unlicensed houses that cannot be licensed because they do not meet the licence conditions, as well as houses where the licence has been revoked. An IMO would usually mean appointing an approved manager of the properties who would collect rents.



Again, this may just be taking away a LL's right to let HMO's?
I also don't understand the 'approved manager' stuff.
Letting agents? Rogue landlord still collects, so long as they employ someone else to ensure that that the bare minimums are seen to (I LOL'd about the story touched on in that article about a family with children, living in a property with mice and damp, like that's not _legally_ allowed)?





> A spokeswoman for Brent said: “The level of housing benefit payments made to Mr McGowan have significantly reduced since 2015, and only two cases currently remain in payment … We are reviewing the two remaining cases to establish whether direct housing benefit payments remain appropriate.
> 
> “*We believe that as a consequence of Brent council’s approach, Mr McGowan has outsourced the responsibility for managing all his properties in Brent,* as well as selling many others. *We believe that this approach, from a housing enforcement perspective, has been a success in making sure that this criminal landlord has felt the full force of the law.”*



Wtf? That's _a win_, is it?

Have I missed stuff? I may have done. I hope I have! This is supposed to look like _success_ for private tenants?


*Re HMO's - there's also this, from Shelter, jftr…




> *Minimum bedroom size for HMOs*





> Some houses in multiple occupation must be licensed by the council.
> 
> 
> 
> If your landlord applied for a HMO licence on or after 1 October 2018 or has renewed it since, bedroom sizes must be at least:





> 6.51 square metres for an adult
> 10.22 square metres for two adults
> 4.64 square metres for a child under 10 years old
> ​
> ...


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jan 21, 2019)

Fuck it - I've tried to edit that loads of times - that last bit (in three separate quotes), from Shelter, should read as one piece.​


----------



## marty21 (Mar 18, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Council pays rogue landlord £500,000 in housing benefit


I worked in a Housing Benefit office decades ago , we had one notorious landlord who had several large houses 6-8 bedrooms . He rented them out 2 to a room to tenants on HB and got £75pw for each of them (this was in London about 1990) . He then doubled them up to 4 to a room and rented out the now empty 3-4 rooms to private tenants who had to be working for another £150 a week . We got tipped  off and did several inspections , I don't know If we managed to prosecute him as I left the job . Private Landlords being cunts has a long , long history.


----------

