Increase housing benefit and build 3 million social homes

Shelter is also having a go at Glasgow City Council, as usual telling others how things should be done and pointing out what isn't being done (we could all do that), and, like Labour, always wanting more money to be spent, like it is a bottomless pocket.

https://www.24housing.co.uk/news/local-authority-acting-unlawfully-over-housing-homeless/

In response, a Glasgow City Council spokesman said: “As they [Shelter] are aware, there are significant pressures on our homelessness accommodation service and we are working with the Scottish Housing Regulator and partners in the third and housing sectors to tackle these challenges.

“Rather than raising money for court action it would be helpful if Shelter worked constructively with us to tackle the pressing issue of homelessness.

“We share a common aim and threats of legal action are an unhelpful distraction to this crucial work

Shelter is such a negative organisation. Surely the time will come when people will see that it does nothing to provide housing but just focuses all its efforts on attacking the many people who spend their days working in various capacities to actually get a roof over people's heads.

What a scandalous way to spend its annual budget of around £60 million a year - at the same time awarding salaries for those at the top of the organisation of more than £100,000. Roll on the day when this nasty so-called charity is consigned to the scrapheap. These vast resources can then be used to provide actual help to people rather than being used on attacking and threatening to sue those who do provide that help

There can be no doubt that Shelter are solely responsible for fomenting the escalating attitude of self entitlement in tenants on benefits. They are also at the forefront of demanding increasingly discriminatory anti-landlord legislation.
The nightmare tenant I had to endure who skillfully hid her benefits status and rental history is a case in point. During the eight months it took to evict her Shelter offered her scurrilous advice on how to remain in situ whilst the eviction process trundled laboriously through the Court. The result was almost a year of no rental, a completely trashed apartment {including all the furniture}, a CCJ awarded against the tenant, the local Council stopping all further benefit payments after I reported her illegal claims and a landlord who has refused to house another tenant. The local Council was made to be financially responsible for the tenant as a minor child was involved.
All of this could have been avoided had Shelter provided sound advice ie pay your rent, look after the property, pay your utilities and foster a good relationship with your private landlord in order to avoid becoming another "homeless" statistic where the options for being housed are limited.
I can think of no other organisation in the UK who deliberately manipulate the truth in order to remain relevant and thus the recipient of vast amounts of money. None of which actually houses the very people they consider the "victims" of "rapacious" landlords.
I have developed an intense antipathy towards anything Shelter claims. It's so far removed from reality as to be delusional.

Reply to Dale:- All so very true. I've said this how many times before - 'paying HB direct to tenant = not paid on to LL = eviction = homelessness' yet this method of payment is never mentioned nor is the drop in social housing availability! Private LLs are always to blame - a different song would be nice? What would happen re homelessness if more LLs make a bolt for the door due to constant new reg's and accusations? That's never mentioned either!

Reply to the comment left by Rod at 22/08/2019 - 09:20Yes. Polly Neate, aka Shelter, appears impervious to the mounting social housing shortage they are creating. Alienating landlords as they do by providing "advice" that ensures a tenant becomes homeless and unwanted by the PRS, let alone destroying the credit history of non-paying tenants by encouraging them to have CCJ's granted against them, appears so counter-productive.
But Polly has an agenda. Apply diversionary and divisive tactics to redirect anger towards the PRS so that no-one actually questions Shelter and their egregious role in that mounting shortage. Or why Shelter and their overly paid minions is actually necessary.

I wonder why we have, as explained by a nature program of a tiger 'wildly expensive private rents'?

Nothing to do with Landlords paying loads more tax cause of Clause 24 the Govt bought in is it?

Or the £780+ Licensing fee we/the tenants have to pay for doing nothing wrong having lived there for 22 years with zero problems, then having a £780+ charge zapped on them?

Or the arrears we accruing through Universal Credit, so we selling reducing supply, so tenants are actually bidding the rent up to secure somewhere?

Ooh I've solved the Housing crisis in one fouls swoop. Sort the above out, Landlords may come flocking back. Loads of choice for tenants, if your house in't up to scratch, they will move to the other Landlords house down the road. And he's too expensive, she'll go to the next one.

Shelter was right on bringing Housing Benefit back in to line with rents after a 5 year freeze. So they do know some stuff.

On the "wildly expensive" private rents I've just discovered that my tenants are still not putting out their rubbish. On my most recent visit last week I found that their unsorted rubbish was buried in the compost heap (food, plastics, bottles, cardboard). What happens when the tenants do this is that foxes and other vermin attack the rubbish and spread it around the garden.
When you're faced with this kind of problem you can't charge your tenants - the law does not allow it. So you have two options:
- evict them for not complying with the terms of their tenancy agreement
- put the rent up
Because you cannot put the rent up unilaterally under the terms of a AST you have to take a guess as to what else the tenants are going to do to your property that you can't charge them for and make sure the rent goes up high enough to cover it.
You have to put the rent up whether you want to or not because you're a fool not to.
Maybe Shelter's proposals need to look at what it is that you have to do to support good behaviour in tenants because in the end that's what good landlords want.

In the meantime you don't have a choice as a landlord. It's a dilemma, not a choice, because you only have two options.

Visit. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7389327/Five-figure-rise-charity-bosses-vast-wages-executive-paid-300-000-receives-134-000-boost.html
To comment on Shelter.

As others have already pointed out Shelter never provide a house,. flat, bedsit or any other sort of shelter for anyone. They have no property yet they have an annual turnover of about £60 million. Just think what a difference they could make to many peoples' lives if even half of that money was directed to building homes for those who are homeless or in poor accommodation; and there would still be loads of money to pay their executives their 6 figure salaries..

Reply to the comment left by Michael Bond at 26/08/2019 - 16:19
But they’d have to be both accountable and earn those salaries then. It’s easier to attend meetings, create campaigns and generally shout about good-sounding ideas without putting anything into practice. If a house-building venture hit a real-world problem, it’d mean finding a solution and/or taking criticism (even if only from within).

Reply to the comment left by JJ at 22/08/2019 - 14:50
If the tenant breaches the agreement, then you can charge them for putting it right. The TFA does not prevent this.