Angela Rayner accuses landlords of profiting from local housing allowance

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 10/07/2025 – 16:10In my area local council houses are rented out by the council for about 1/3 of what the going rate is for a similar property in the PRS if you compare like-for-like. One of my neighbours had one of the council houses, lived in it for far less time than I have lived in my house, and bought it for a 30% discount. It probably took me the best part of 20 years to earn after tax the amount of money that my neighbours were given,
I don’t blame my neighbours for doing it: If my kids could do the same thing, then I would advise them to do it.
Another of my neighbours who still lives in a council house recently moved next door. I believe that they were able to move next door because being local they had priority. But the sole reason that they moved next door was because they moved next door the council had to give them a new kitchen.
This particular gravy train is something that I’ve never been entitled to. The gravy is abundant and Angela Rayner has had some of it.
I wouldn’t blame any landlord for taking advantage of the Serco contract. If the government is going to give gravy to someone, it might as well be you. You aren’t entitled to much else…but social housing tenants are.

Technically she is honest, but landlords MUST be able to profit from the housing allowance.

If landlords can no longer profit they will be making a loss and guess what, we will just vanish.

The politics of envy will however never recognize this basic truth, or even ask the tax man how much profit landlords are actually making.

Council house rent increased by 7.7% last year and increased by 2.7% this year but LHA allowances didn’t increase.

Greedy councils …..Angela you need to start bleating on about your greedy councils not private landlords.

I accuse Angela Rayner of profiting from the UK taxpayer.

We pay her £91,904, plus expenses, plus allowances for running an office and in Angela’s case, trips to New York and expensive clothes and god knows what else!

I wish I earned half her salary, never mind the expenses.

I help the economy by taking risk, investing money, creating jobs for many trades, giving people a nice place to live – PEOPLE WHO COULD BANKRUPT ME – and helping the economy so that people’s pensions might be worth something one day.

I’m the last in the queue to be paid and Angela has the nerve to criticise ME!

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 10/07/2025 – 16:16
And is there any truth in comments I have read elsewhere suggesting that the Government are paying for illegals / boat people/etc. to stay in hotels/hostels etc. £125 per night ! (£875 per week/£3,750 per month !!) please tell me this is just scaremongering .

I would be interested to hear AR’s explanation of what she means by a ‘social tenant’ as I am confused!

I don’t know how Raynor dares to complain why there is a lack of social homes when she bought her council house and sold it for profit.

I don’t knowingly take people on benefits, but several of my tenants now claim different sorts of UC.

I’ve busted a few of them that were trying to play the benefit scam and saved the government thousands of pounds per year.

I dont think that any of the government BTR companies will take benefit tenants, so why should the prs landlords take them on?

The government are forcing landlords to switch to Serco to get them out of the housing crisis for illegal immigrants.

It’s not going to work for me. I’m not bailing them out.

I have numerous tenants apply for my good houses when they become available and I have a waiting list, so don’t need to advertise.

The government is the ones driving up rents

Here we go again. Government pointing blame at landlords. Yes they need more government built housing but until they achieve providing more new homes the government need to step up and provide the funding. It’s not the landlords duty to provide government welfare.
The rental crisis is due to the current and labours previous governments as well as conservatives fault for flogging it’s housing off cheap and not using the money to replace the stock. They have pie in the sky ambitions of building without the labour force. Again, previous governments fault for not investing in trades. They need to start paying more.attention to allowing legal work visas to construction trades (not just project managers and QS’s as they are useless without the trade labour), until such time we can produce future construction trade professionals, but of course, they are blinkered to these problems and think pouring money into private consultants to give them reports with findings they want to hear will cure all problems.

Reply to the comment left by Mike T at 10/07/2025 – 20:49
The truth is that I don’t know. But from the point of view of a local council tax payer and an income tax payer….

A lot of local authorities are either bankrupt, or close to being bankrupt. They have an obligation to house the people who e.g., stop paying your rent as a PRS landlord and make themselves homeless. They have to meet these costs from their existing budgets, some of which comes from government and some comes from council tax (that they are not allowed to raise, or not by much). They also have to pay an enormous amount of money for social care; and somebody, somewhere is on the hook for paying for their exceedingly generous defined benefit pensions and for the severance packages (and pensions) of their chief executives when they get booted out after a couple of years of not making the books balance.

So government (I presume the Home Office) is paying an extortionate amount of money to keep economic migrants (and a sprinkling of genuine asylum seekers) in hotels. I believe that this is coming from the Overseas Aid Budget. And government then comes along and gives Serco a contract to house these people enabling Serco to compete for housing to house them. I’m guessing that this money is still coming from the Overseas Aid Budget and so from the point of view of a council this is just extra money when they are short of cash. So why wouldn’t they take it? Probably, if you were the chief executive of a local council on a six-figure salary, then you’d take the money too.

When government gives money to an organisation like Serco they fund a new market segment and this creates market pressure, drawing people into this ‘solution’, with a lot of pressure because it’s much cheaper than putting people in hotels. And it’s more attractive than being in a tent in Calais. This new market also competes against existing market segments, like people who might need accommodation in HMOS funded by the council.

This new market segment is not going to be evenly distributed across the UK. It might be concentrated in places like Bradford or Liverpool, or even in very localised areas like parts of a borough, Lambeth for example. But wherever it is concentrated, this market pressure is going to have a disproportionate effect on people at the lower end of the socio-economic scale. And if there are local people who find themselves in worse housing than these new people, in sub-standard social housing for example, then this market pressure will create tension in these communities.

The problem that the government has it that they can’t sort this problem out WITHOUT the help of the market. They need more accommodation, they need more energy efficient accommodation and they need it now.

So you have to ask yourself the question. Why are they continuing to punish small portfolio landlords with a policy introduced by George Osborne stopping landlords from offsetting their finance costs and not introducing capital allowances that would favour retrofits with genuine energy efficiency measures. This government is very fond of blaming the previous government for the mess that they inherited; and if they can’t see that the only way to fix the problem is to empower the market to do it, and even blame George Osborne for the failure of a previous policy if that’s what they feel they need to do (whether this is right or wrong), then they really are very stupid and incompetent indeed: Even as politicians and greasy-pole climbers.

The government needs to get the Competition and Markets Authority to take another look at this.

So rayner will build houses which will then be sold off to the tenants at a discount.the government will have to service the cost of building the dwellings

Or the private sector can finance buying
Houses to rent ,thus saving the government a big dept ,which they can’t afford.
So why is rayner so stupid