Profile incomplete
by Mary Latham
16:42 PM, 30th December 2012, About 11 years ago 79
Text Size
In the West Midlands we are addressing the issue of educating the young to understand their future housing options, financial obligations and choices. I work on behalf of NLA with a consortium called HOMESTAMP (www.homestamp.com) and we are just coming to the end of a major project to get a module into the national curriculum for 14-16 year olds. Under the subject of Financial Management this module will help to break the cycle for many young people to prevent them becoming the 4th generation of their family to base their lifestyle on “benefits will provide”. This will be a reality check for those who may believe that becoming pregnant will ensure them a “nice little flat off the council”.
All local authorities are becoming more and more reliant on the Professional Rental Sector (PRS) to help them to house their homeless and it is vital that young people are aware that their only future options will be to stay at home, provide their own homes (by renting or buying) or to convince a private landlord that they will be a good tenant. By the time these young people leave education the Universal credit will be in place and there are serious concerns that giving people a “purse of money” will further increase rent arrears, not only for the PRS, but also for local authorities and Registered Social Landlord’s (RSL). The utility companies will also become victims of those who choose to misuse the money provided to them, from our tax pounds, to keep them safe.
We all learn from what we absorb and young people who are brought up in families where no one gets up in the morning and dashes off to work become accustomed to this life style for them it becomes the norm. It will take some time to re-educate these youngsters that there is another way of living and that the alternative may, in future, be their only option. We need to appeal to the innate desire of each new generation to rebel against the lifestyle of their parents. No one wants to live in a society where we don’t care for those who need our help and financial support but it is in meeting the needs of the needy that we also fall victims to the greedy. I am well aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find work and that withdrawing or reducing benefits alone is not the answer but we must start with motivation, because it is only motivation that will break the cycle. We need to get to the point where young people leave education “knowing” that the next step is to find a way to fund the life that they plan.
Schools need to play a major role in making these youngsters aware of the life that they could have rather than allowing them to become myopic about their future. Parents also need to play a part. Those of us who do work often allow our offspring to open an account at the bank of mum and dad and, while this may be necessary during the years that they are in education, we need to close their accounts one month after they leave education and motivate them to become self supporting and to gain the dignity that comes from paying your own way. It is selfish of us to want to give our kids what we did not have because in doing so we take away from them one important thing that we did have, MOTIVATION. I consider myself fortunate that my parents could not afford to allow me to remain unemployed, I grew up knowing how hard my parents worked to fund our simple lifestyle and I could not wait to earn my own money. I knew what I wanted, I also knew that the only way that I would get that I wanted was to work.
As a tax payer, I welcome the Governments plans to gradually reduce the “dependence” mentality of many people in this country. As a landlord, I do fear that some of these plans may impact on my own income. All landlords are only one redundancy away from a tenant who is on benefits and we all need to position ourselves to ensure that whatever else comes out of that “purse” of universal credit our rent comes out first. ALL Assured Shorthold Tenancy’s (AST) should carry a clear clause that the tenancy is only granted on the basis that if now or at any time in future the tenant needs to claim benefits to help to pay all or part of the rent that rent is paid directly to the landlord. Under new Government guidance issued this year, local authorities should pay the rent directly to the landlord who only grant tenancies based on direct payment, as part of their safeguarding policy. Local authorities were given discretion on this, unfortunately, and it is up to the PRS to ensure that this discretion is exercised in our favour. Landlords should attend all local authorities landlords fora and landlord meetings and be very vocal about the fact that we will not be become part of the welfare state, we will not pay into a system that gives people financial support without protecting our tax pounds by ensuring that the money given is used to keep a roof over the claimants head. We will be taking legal eviction action and pursuing our rent arrears and we will refuse to house those who we fear will not pay for the service that we provide. All these authorities are only too well aware that without the PRS they are in BIG trouble, the day has arrived when they need us more than we need them and it is time that we set out clearly our terms of business.
You will often hear the term “financial inclusion”, what does that mean? It means that no one should be excluded from society because they have a lack of money and I absolutely agree with that. But there are accepted norms in our society and among them is the implicit understanding that goods and services must be paid for. Most of us arrange our finances so that the bills are paid before we spend on other, less important things. Most people use a system of standing orders and direct debits to avoid the temptation to put our desires before our obligations. Financial inclusion in our society means helping those who do not have the skills to manage their finances to follow these “norms”. Many people have poor financial histories and cannot gain access to the high street banks but Credit Unions will take these customers and most will “ring fence” their rent payments if landlords work with them. They will also send a landlord written notification if the tenant exercises his right to stop a standing order and, because they require one months notice to do this, the landlord has time to take appropriate action. The landlord will also get written notification if a tenant tell the Credit Union to change his rent payments from you to another landlord and again this is early warning that a tenant may have abandoned the property. Abandonment is fraught with potholes for unsuspecting landlords. Some landlords use what are known as “abandonment notices” on the door of the property but these notices have no legal status and will not protect a landlord against accusations of illegal eviction and the horrifying penalties that may follow a successful conviction. A tenant who has given a Credit Union the required written notification to change the recipient of their rent payments has committed himself in writing to the fact that he has changed his prime residence and the written notification that the Credit Union will send to the landlord may be just the document you need to cover your back.
The PRS must survive because without us we will have “cardboard Cities” all over this country. I believe that the Universal Credit will bring us closer to the day when Government have to face the fact that
Landlords are running a business, a business which is vital to the future of this country and the well being of those who live here. Landlords need to be paid for their services just like any other business. Without homes, people will sink into further dependence and put pressure on the Health Service, the Legal System and society in general. The UK will not be a place where people want to make a life and bring up their children. We will not hang onto the many talented young people who are the future of this country. We will become a country of lawlessness, worklessness and hopelessness.
This article was first published on 15th December 2011 and has been re-published on 30th December 2012 following recent media reports of a survey carried out by Housing Charity “Crisis” which indicates that only 1.5% of Private Landlords now rent to tenants claiming benefits.
Previous Article
Landlords Exit Strategy - Readers CGT Question
Mary Latham
10:46 AM, 26th September 2011, About 13 years ago
As a good mother you would say "Go for it son, just so long as your eyes are looking upwards you will never fail"
16:06 PM, 26th September 2011, About 13 years ago
No, I'd say 'Oh my good grief get down from there, homework first, and is that the wood I had earmarked for the kitchen shelves and why haven't you changed out of your school uniform....'
Life. It just is. :)'
Mary Latham
16:57 PM, 5th December 2011, About 13 years ago
Are we Brumies seeing something that everyone else is afraid to look at?
The University of Birmingham has just published a paper entitled
Current benefit and taxation system – unfit for purpose
“The current systems locks people into poverty and damages their ability to do the best they can for themselves. A better system would start with a broader conception of the capabilities that underpin a good life and would be more sensitive to providing the support and incentives necessary for self development.
This model is imperfect; but it reminds us that if our primary concern is the quality of people’s lives then money is only one aspect of real wealth. It is not just money, but it is the exercise of our talents, development of relationships and engagement with community that is necessary for human development. So when examining our welfare arrangements it is not the size of public spending or even the level of minimum income on its own that we should be concerned with.”
Jonathan Clarke
9:27 AM, 28th December 2011, About 12 years ago
Great discussion and many excellent, valid and well articulated arguments. There is no right and no wrong and its all a matter of opinion is my mantra. When you get people /leaders at the top of their field disagreeing you know its all a matter of opinion and there is no fact. I will use religion as an example precisely because it is so divisive and inflammatory. ( Archbishop of Canterbury, The Pope, The Dalai Lama all disagree but have thousands/ millions of followers). Not all three are right. They will swear they are. They are stubborn. As is Richard Dawkins for that matter. As is Cameron / Milliband and Clegg etc etc. As am I. Egos yes. A massive human failing. I`m an agnostic by the way. Which is basically saying I cop out. Nobody knows Where do I get my feelings of guilt / kindness/ anger/ empathy from though. I know I am not a robot. Or am I but just a very sophisticated one perhaps. Why do some extend these human feelings only to their inner family network whilst others neglect them but some again will work tirelessly for others in the bigger arena
Its all about our inner feelings about social justice which stem from from our personal belief structure which has been formulated over time and twisted and turned as we touch on other belief patterns. . As you read this you are affected a bit as i have been by your posts. Some influence me more. Some I influence more. Life is a continuum. I am not the same as i was yesterday. Thats what i love about life. I can change my whole way of thinking today here and now if I chose to. No one can stop me. How powerful am I ?!!! 🙂 We are victims of our upbringing whether that is perceived to be good or bad. If we started again would we create the society we live in today. No. Would it be similar to what we have now. Probably. The human being is a flawed creature so we work with what we got.Assuming the Education Act ( in itself very limiting in my view) remains for the foreseeable future lets work with that. We have a captive audience then for 5yr olds between 9am and 3pm in a classroom. Focus our energies there. Yes deal with the 6-16yr olds and beyond but that is just one generation and stop gap measures of containment have to be introduced. The pre 5yr olds again just containment as we havent got the resources. Why will this not happen. because politicians are elected for 5years so they are not motivated for any longer. A 10yr old has little voice. At 25yrs old only the very visionary will think of a world 100 yrs from now. At 75 you do more so but your energy is sapped and time is short now. The human race crawls forwards if at all. Often its only sidewards like a crab. Often its backwards. We are living longer so it will happen. We will sort it eventually. I am an optimist. I have limited time and energy. I divide it up - So I will expend most time on those closest to me , a bit more on my friends and a little bit more on my own tenants, a bit more again on my local community a bit more on my country and so on. I plead with councils /government to recognise that yes I wholeheartedly agree fundamentally that personal responsibility is a worthwhile goal to aim for but to pay the rent money to tenants is nothing short of madness. My tenants dont want it, I dont want it and society when it has to pick up the tab after your 5yrs is up will not want it. Be visionary within your lifetime as an MP not only for 5yrs but also beyond that time frame. In this matter and many others .Its a buzz . Thank you
13:59 PM, 28th December 2011, About 12 years ago
Shouldn't it be pretty damn basic if you don't pay your contractual rent you get arrested and prosecuted for theft.
Try staying in a hotel room and tell the hotel you are not going to pay the bill.
You find yourself carted off to the police stn.
Tell me what is the difference between renting a hotel room for 2 weeks and renting a property for 6 months; or am I missing something.
21:54 PM, 28th December 2011, About 12 years ago
Paul the difference between and hotel room and a rented property is that one is offered as a temporary place to live and the other as a home.
As a landlord I agree that if a person contracts to buy a service that he has agreed to pay for the payment should be forthcoming otherwise the customer has broken the law. The issue becomes blurred by the fact that withdrawing our "service" is making a person homeless thus taking away a basic human need. It could be argued that if a person steels food from Tesco and that person is hungry he should not be presecuted for the theft because a person needs food to live. Why should Tesco profit from selling food to those who need to eat? For the same reason as a landlord should profit from renting homes to people who need a place to live. The motivation of Tesco and landlords is just the same and without that motivation why would we do it?
Jonathan Clarke
3:46 AM, 29th December 2011, About 12 years ago
They are both prosecuted as they are both offences. The hotel example is through the criminal courts and the non paying tenant is through the civil courts. But for me it is the speed and the manner in which justice is administered which irks landlords so much. There is a balance to be had for sure but it is so very heavily weighted against landlords and needs a radical readjustment in my view. The argument is not about losing their home so much as it is society saying that stealing a 50p mars bars from tescos will lead to a policeman arresting you and is therefore more important. . The emphasis is misguided and illjudged. If your tenant does the equivalent by witholding their £750 rent one month they will not be arrested even though their offence is much more indefensible. It is about the deterrent. There is very little immediate deterrent for a tenant not to pay their rent. We could set the rules so that if society deems keeping a roof over ones head is a must ( which it is) then it is made a criminal offence not to pay rent. They could get arrested. That would ensure many put it to the top of their list of priorities and solve much of the problem. The temptation to spend rent on other things is massive because the deterrents in place are so weak. Morally both offences are wrong . Society can deal much more effectively if it chooses to and it doesnt mean the person has to be made homeless as there are a raft of measures which could be taken to rectify the wrong long before they get to the stage before they have to lose their home. If however the tenant does not still chose to comply with those measures imposed by a criminal court (if as a society we were to put that in place) then yes they will lose their home eventually. They will be rehoused though - In a prison!
14:14 PM, 29th December 2011, About 12 years ago
Jonathan you raise an intersting issue - Why is it that society considers "stealing" from a landlord to be less "criminal" than steeling from Tesco? Is it because landlords are seen as wealthy people who can afford to take the loss? With around 1.5 million people in this country renting property why are landlords seen as the "idle rich"? Only a tiny minority of landlords own their properties outright and an even smaller number obtained those properties through anything other than hard work and risk taking. Before we can change the legal situation we need to change the public perception of landlords. How on earth can we do that?
I agree 100% that the only way to motivate tenants to prioritise rent is to make none payment a criminal offence - prevention is better than cure. I cannot see this happening in the near future.
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
14:19 PM, 29th December 2011, About 12 years ago
Hi Mary, I have offered to build a platform to allow landlords to influence perceptions but it needs a lot more support before it gets commissioned. To spread the word we need to tell people to Google search "The Good Landlords Campaign"
14:50 PM, 29th December 2011, About 12 years ago
I will pass the message on to landlords in the West Midlands Mark and I hope that it really takes off. To be clear at this point all you need landlords to do is a Google search of The Good Landlords Campaign. Is that correct?