Profile incomplete
15:27 PM, 24th August 2018, About 6 years ago 20
Text Size
Serious questions were raised by my colleague on P118 ‘Free Advice for Shelter‘, concerning the so-called ‘housing’ charity Shelter. As we know, it is clearly a double misnomer to call this multi-million pound organisation a ‘housing’ charity or ‘Shelter,’ as it provides neither.
Clearly, most of the money goes on salaries and those salaried employees spend a significant amount of time campaigning against actual housing providers and slurring our name. These attacks are now reaching a crescendo.
The success of Shelter’s latest campaign against landlords – proposing the mandating of 3-year tenancies – has emboldened the extreme organisation ‘Generation Rent’ which is now suggesting that 3 years is not enough and that it should be made extremely difficult if not impossible for landlords to ever regain possession of their properties.
Already private landlords are running for the door. The predictable consequences will be a shortage of rented accommodation and the homes which remain in the sector will become more expensive to cover the huge taxes landlords now face and the risk associated with all this regulation. The lowest-paid will have to leave the PRS and go begging the councils for the homes they no longer have because they sold them all off and now expect the PRS to pick up the slack, whilst we are simultaneously attacked from all quarters.
Logic and reason account for nothing in this febrile environment. It doesn’t matter that Shelter’s consistent campaigning is built on wildly inaccurate statements and distorted representations of the sector.
There are three particular claims which are highly questionable, contained in a quote from their Facebook site:
‘Renting is unaffordable, unstable and unsafe.’Click Here
Facts:
Firstly, to clarify, when Shelter talks about ‘renting’ in this context it is only referring to renting from ‘private’ landlords. This is clear in the following statement made by Shelter:
‘It’s even worse for people on low incomes who rent. They’re trapped paying ever-rising rents, and can’t access social housing – let alone save for a home of their own.’
It makes additional claims in this context which serve to emphasise its point about unaffordability: for example, in its advertising campaign in May 2017 the logo reads: ‘How much have you spent on rent?’ The advert featured prominently the single phrase: ‘rip off.’
The Oxford dictionary defines a rip-off as: ‘A fraud or swindle, especially something that is grossly overpriced.’
Also, on the 20th of May 2017, Shelter referred to ‘soaring rents.’
In fact, Shelter’s claim that renting in the private sector is (uniquely) unaffordable is open to challenge on various fronts:
Regarding the idea that private rents are unaffordable per se:
‘The insurance company Homelet has shown that, assuming an affordability measure of rents being a third of gross salaries, in most regions rents are below affordability requirements.
Research from Savills and YouGov reached similar conclusions to the Homelet research, showing that most tenants are spending anything from 20% to 30% on rent.
A Hometrack report found that:
I have more examples and evidence, which I omit for the sake of brevity. However, the following graph provides a good illustration
If London were excluded from this average picture it would be even clearer that rents are highly affordable and under 30% of gross income in most regions of England and also in Wales.
It is thus simply not true to say that rents are unaffordable and/or have soared.
Shelter has been campaigning for 5-year tenancies as they see 5-year tenancies as ‘stable,’ with longevity of contracts deemed the defining characteristic of stability. The average length of tenancy in England was 4.3 years in 2015-2016 (EHS 2015-2016). I would suggest that, comparatively, a 4.3 year average is therefore also pretty ‘stable.’ The claim is therefore extremely weak.’
The evidence is also clear that where tenancies end prematurely this is overwhelmingly due to tenants’ decisions and/or behaviour, so it is the tenant who largely dictates the length of the tenancy. These might therefore be seen as ‘tenant-controlled rentals,’ rather than as rentals lacking in stability. The Residential Landlords Association had the following to say:
‘In dismissing these allegations which Shelter has been making for several years even before the latest claims, the Residential Landlords Association has pointed out that the reality is that nearly all tenancies are ended by tenants. Just 9% are ended by landlords, usually as a result of tenant rent arrears or anti-social behaviour.’
Further evidence that tenants are ending their tenancies includes a YouGov survey from Savills which shows that tenants mostly move to find a better property, with fewer than 15% of tenancies being ended by landlords. Click Here
I have been unable to find a single definition of what Shelter means when it states that private renting is ‘unsafe.’ It is not easy to combat an accusation that is not clearly explained, so I will have to guess and take it to mean that fire safety, trip hazards, electrical safety and so on are deemed by Shelter to be not up to scratch in the private rented sector.
In fact, the English Housing Survey has stated that the sector’s safety has improved dramatically – so it is misleading of Shelter not to mention this:
‘Over a quarter (28%) of private rented homes failed to meet the Decent Homes standard in 2015. The comparative figure for social sector rented sector was 13%. Although the private rented sector has always performed less well than other tenures using this measure of housing quality, there was a marked improvement in the proportion of non-decent private rented homes over the 2006 to 2013 period from 47% to 30%. Since then the proportion of non-decent homes in the sector has remained virtually unchanged.’
Although this means a proportion are considered to be non-decent, non-decent does not mean ‘unsafe’. The definition of ‘non-decent’ was created to measure the social sector, not the private sector and is defined by Shelter in the following terms:
‘The Decent Homes Standard is a programme aimed at improving council and housing association homes to bring them all up to a minimum standard.
To meet the Decent Home Standard, your council or housing association home must:
However, in the private sector, there is a disproportionate number of older properties than in the social sector, so it is harder to achieve the same level of insulation. This must be taken into account.
To use one index, in 2015, when ‘rogue landlords’ were targeted, and 40,000 inspections undertaken, this resulted in 3,000 cases where further action or prosecution resulted. So even within this extreme category, 92.5% were considered safe enough to warrant no further action. click here
This is in contrast to inspections of Local Authority tower blocks last year, where 0% were considered to be safe.
Shelter’s findings in an earlier report that 33% of private rented homes and only 15% of social rented homes contained a ‘Category 1 hazard’ is thus open to serious question click here
In light of these facts, it would be reasonable to expect Shelter to withdraw its claim that private renting is unaffordable, insecure and unsafe and to desist from repeating similar, unsubstantiated claims in future.
Previous Article
Free advice for Shelter
Gromit
10:38 AM, 28th August 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Christopher Marsden at 28/08/2018 - 10:26
How about a demonstration outside the Tory party conference?
Handing out leaflets to every delegate on the consequences of s.24?
Does anyone live near the Birmingham ICC where its being held?
Alison King
10:50 AM, 28th August 2018, About 6 years ago
Whilst I completely agree with the overall sentiment, I am not convinced that going on the attack is the best approach, and it could well make landlords look even more evil in the eyes of our detractors. Of course there is huge concern about homelessness, and charities are needed where governments fail, because home providers; both private and social, cannot house everyone at affordable rents in the current climate without help. Landlords are indeed being used as scapegoats, but the solution is to work together to chip away at the myths and form trusting relationships, not escalate an already unpleasant situation in which the greatest losers are the homeless.
Luke P
10:56 AM, 28th August 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Alison King at 28/08/2018 - 10:50
The only way to be liked without attacking is to be wanted. To be wanted there must be such a crisis that tenants/LAs/Government *need* us so badly and any alternative is simply not an option in tenants' minds. I fear this needs to get worse before it gets better.
Those that survive will do well and there'll likely be an entire generation of love for LLs whilst 'the bad times' (of lack of provision by anyone other than LLs) are still in living memory.
Robert M
11:40 AM, 28th August 2018, About 6 years ago
There are thousands of landlords who read the threads on Property118, but only perhaps a few dozen who actually post comments regularly (let alone post new threads), so as a whole landlords are their own worst enemy as they cannot stand up with one powerful voice and make themselves heard and understood. The likes of Shelter, and Generation Rent, are united in one cause (deriding the private landlords) and they know how to shout their message loud and clear to both the public and the politicians. Their anti landlord stance is accepted by the public and the politicians as being the truth, even though most of it is a lie (exaggerations of a few "bad landlord" cases). How can a whispered truth be heard when a lie is being shouted out from all directions?
Kathy Evans
14:34 PM, 28th August 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Alison King at 28/08/2018 - 10:50
But if taxpayers' money is going to charities, it should at least go to charities who provide a service - for homelessness perhaps Salvation Army or others that provide hostel places - not a bunch of parasites like Shelter.
Mick Roberts
14:43 PM, 28th August 2018, About 6 years ago
Apologies to those who's read the below last week or week before when I had a rant, but I put this on Facebook page & also privately messaged Shelter the same, who said they would get back to me in 5 days. They didn't.
So if they want to reduce homeless & find out why we ain't taking HB, why aren't they talking to us?
Gees,
When will these people EVER COME TALK TO US?
I'm one of the biggest Housing Benefits HB Landlords in the UK Shelter if you are listening.
I have loved HB for years, the people are normal. I, don't laugh at this, used to refuse working people ha ha.
I now after 20 years don't want HB. Why not? Come ask me newspapers as long as I han't got to have me photo taken. Come ask em Radio stations?
I don't take HB any more-Come take me to court, because the Govt & Councils change the rules when we've already got the tenants in.
I've only ever took 4 or 5 tenants to court for eviction. And the reason is? They've lived there 5 10 years & then all of a sudden, the Govt gave them the Benefit Cap. No one could foresee this 7 or so years ago.
But you Mr Govt dimwits, didn't cap them directly, you took the money out their HB to landlords. So tenants didn't get capped, so what did they learn? Nothing. We the Landlord lost the money, you STOPPED paying their rent because these 4 kids they've had for years, you now decide they've had too many.
You din't do it on new babies, so they had warning, nor did you did it before they moved in the house & said If you move in there, we not paying the rent. YOU DID IT WHEN THEY WAS ALREADY LIVING THERE FOR YEARS!!!!!
That's why Shelter, some of us don't take HB any more.
The Govt also approx 2012 stopped paying the normal 1 bed £90pw for anyone under 35. It used to be 25. So the 27 year old living in the house no longer could afford the rent, you'd only pay £69 for him. Where's he getting the £21 extra from, u imbeciles?
Why did the Govt do this? 'Cause it saved approx £225 mil they say. Stop all HB then. Let's make everyone homeless.
You bought clause 24 in which stretched some Landlords to avoiding the risk on HB.
And now, I'd say the biggest reason for refusing HB is the new Universal Credit UC system u numptees. You paying the tenant direct the RENT FOR THE HOUSE. I say this, WHAT IS THE WORSE THAT COULD HAPPEN IF YOU PAY THE LANDLORD THE HOUSING ELEMENT DIRECT? Ooh yes, the Landlord gets his rent, he pays the mortgage, & the tenant doesn't become homeless. What an Einstein brainwave. Ooh no my dog's just worked that out too. Seems the Govt & UC can't.
Ooh this morning when that was on the news, Shelter ring me, see me. I'll tell u how it is. We only want the rent. Is that a crime?
Sort the Govt & UC out. UC is a nightmare. We getting it fully in Nottm approx Oct 18.
I only have 3 tenants on it so far & so far 100% failure rate. One tenant, UC paid her for approx 16 18 months AFTER I REPORTED ARREARS.
Engage & communicate with Landlord, we WANT THE TENANT TO STAY. But they can't stay if no rent.
HB tenants are normally on average, more time consuming-FACT!
I have some Letting Agent posh tenants & 1 tenant takes up approx 10 mins of my time per year.
I have lots of HB tenant, A lot EACH ONE takes 6 hours per month.
Do u want to ask me again while I don't take HB.
Sort Benefit cap out. so many thousand there back into the Private Rented.
Sort out direct payment UC, Landlords will come flocking back.
HB made these mistakes years ago, UC won't listen to how HB do it. In UC's manual is How can I make it as hard as possible for Landlord & tenant. Instead of How can we pay this rent so tenant don't go homeless.
There's gonna' be worse to come once UC goes Nationwide.
I ain't got a degree & I have answered why no HB. Yet Eton toffs Tory Govt der.....
Ooh and now Nottingham Selective Licensing & other councils. You give us the most stringent conditions AFTER WE ALREADY HAVE THE TENANTS, that most HB tenants can't abide by.
That Shelter is why we ain't taking HB any more. 'Cause of the above & also you change the rules & goalposts when they already live in the house.
Can you go in a shop & buy a Mars Bar without paying? No, you keep doing it, u get arrested.
Why can someone live in a house & pay no rent? And now you trying to make it harder for Landlord to get tenant out when he ain't paying any rent. Why? U don't even know what's gonna' happen here, do you u dimwits. Landlords are now gonna' go for even more squeaky clean tenants which is gonna' exclude even more HB.
There is your answer Shelter. And I have some VERY GOOD HB been with me 20 years. But I also have some very bad labour intensive HB. We're getting older, we don't want the hassle. We renting them houses & you want us to be debt collector, Social Worker, Policeman, Judge, soft touch. Get with it.
Ring me, I'm waiting.
I give permission for anyone to put my reply on Shelter Facebook page.
Gromit
15:05 PM, 28th August 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 28/08/2018 - 14:43
Great rant 🙂
AA
19:20 PM, 28th August 2018, About 6 years ago
On the topic of hostile groups against landlords I was reading a Generation Rent policy article. Had heard of the term "generation rent" but did not know there was a campaign group. The right to buy (your property at a discount) came up. WTF ? WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT??? F**** me. Sorry for the bad language but …. and then I read Jeremy Corbyn is up for this. A private tenant gets to buy your property at a discounted rate. Alarmist ? S24 …. No no no they can't do that ...its a business cost. And now every accountant practising or retired mutters philosophically the utterances "never seen anything like it" . The policy being retroactive and vindictive. Now if these groups are peddling this, we should have some concerns.
Appalled Landlord
20:53 PM, 28th August 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by AA at 28/08/2018 - 19:20
Hi AA
Corbyn wrote a Housing Policy Paper in August 2015 before he was elected leader. He would cancel the right to buy social housing, but introduce it for tenants of large scale private landlords
Page 5: “We could re-direct some of the £14 billion of tax reliefs received by private landlords to help struggling private tenants; this would of course include building new council homes and helping private tenants to overcome the deposit problem. We could also investigate whether some of this money could be used to fund a form of right-to-buy shared equity scheme to private tenants in cases when they are renting from large-scale landlords.”
Page 4 includes::“By a range of measures, including building more housing overall, restricting subsidies to buy to let landlords, and regulating rental value, we can bring down house prices and make home ownership an affordable option for more people.” By subsidies I assume he meant housing benefit. Ignorant people claim that HB subsidises the landlord, whereas in fact it subsidises the tenant.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jeremyforlabour/pages/106/attachments/original/1438782182/housing.pdf?1438782182
In 2013 David Kingman, the man who claims credit for S 24, claimed that the total of all business costs of individual private landlords (not just finance costs) had been £13 billion in 2010/11.
See page 18 of http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Why-BTL-Equals-Big-Tax-Rip-off.pdf
Corbyn must have added a billion.for inflation.
Kingman’s report was rebutted here: https://www.property118.com/landlord-tax-grab-source-document-exposed/
AA
19:01 PM, 29th August 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Appalled Landlord at 28/08/2018 - 20:53
Wow and thanks for the follow through. It seems I am not up to speed with all the mud being slung at landlords and the irrational and extremely prejudicial thinking is out there.