National Landlords Alliance on BBC Radio 4 You and Yours

I've had a few of these interviews as has Mark.
And they are MUCH BETTER talkers than us, & they get used to changing tac quick & firing in quick answer which they know u gonna' struggle with & when u look back later, had u had more time, u would have answered better.

U look back & u think She put me on the spot there, it's like they need an answer in 1.5 seconds & u best be quick.

U can see why some celebs only do interviews if they have the questions beforehand.

I had Licensing Radio interview & she was itching to get out my mouth I'm evicting & I'm putting rents up. I did mistakenly succumb & said something along the lines rents are going up by maybe £10pw, which one tenant did slate me for, but I've only put 'em up the majority £3pw, & if had time to prepare, would have gave a better answer.

We ain't Radio people, we Landlords. They the expert at getting us to drop ourselves in it inadvertently (Is that a word ha ha).

Reply to the comment left by Freda Blogs at 29/11/2018 - 11:00
It's a learning experience.

Without constructive criticism one cannot improve.

I'm sure Larry will do better next time.

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 29/11/2018 - 12:12
Larry of course you were cut short when it appeared that you were about to launch into defamatory accusations against an identifiable individual. Why did you waste the first 45 seconds of the interview refusing to answer the question about how many members you represent and then go on to quote statistics proving that none of the landlord associations can claim to represent anything more than a tiny proportion of landlords?
When you were given the opportunity to detail your complaints against shelter you chose to highlight their campaign against a few letting agents which is of little or no interest to the vast majority of the audience instead of explaining the detrimental effect on tenants of Shelter's support for punitive tax measures, increasing regulation and their campaign to abolish section 21.
The interviewer had already made the point that Shelter do not claim to provide housing but are there to provide advice and help to those experiencing actual or threatened homelessness and it is clear to me if not to others that the campaign to try and persuade Shelter to provide guarantees is doomed to failure and a complete waste of time and effort, which is perhaps why your attempt to raise this was given short shrift.
I was slightly surprised that the interviewer did not press you further on your motivation after you stated that you effectively have no interest in the domestic rental market as you are essentially a commercial landlord and therefore unaffected by Shelter's activities.
I do not share the view that the interviewer showed any bias and thought that you were given a great opportunity to highlight the important issues but fell into the trap of trying to explain esoteric issues of limited interest to the general public, instead of focusing on matters to which the average listener could relate.

Seething Landlord. Get out of the way. You did not join us and have always been critical. We are doing very well thank you and most importantly our members were extremely pleased. We have fought harder to change the narrative in the last few weeks than any of the other organisations have ever done. You should do your seething with our enemies ,rather than dripping negativity here.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 29/11/2018 - 13:22
Harsh but fair critique.

Having been in a similar position I know exactly how difficult it is, and that's after having taken a BBC media training course.

I'm sure Larry will look back on this as a learning experience and I commend him for getting himself onto the pitch. It is all too easy to criticise from the sidelines and after the event.

The best way to get better at playing the game is to get onto the pitch and play. That's exactly what Larry has done and I am sure he will get better at dealing with tough tackles the more he plays the game.

Incidentally, I think this might be the story that Larry wanted to raise about Shelter and Grenfell https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/two-shelter-board-members-derek-myers-tony-rice-quit-after-grenfell-tower-fire

I do agree with you on the point that Shelters support of S21 and it's devastating impact of homelessness would have been a better lead punch to throw though.

For example; street homelessness has doubled in the last 12 months and will continue to do so as private landlords are increasing forced to sell their rental properties to those who CAN afford to buy, and this is one of the reasons why street homelessness is on the rise. Shelter don't actually invest a penny of their £60 million a year of budgets into providing shelter for these people, instead they continually vilify actual providers of housing and drive the honest ones out of the market with their support for making finance costs a non-deductible business cost for individual landlords.

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 29/11/2018 - 13:45
Larry I would just comment on your reply that the most important thing is not to please your members but to influence the wider audience in your favour. I am fully aware from your previous responses that you do not appreciate criticism in any form and that instead of taking on board what is said you immediately launch into a counter attack.
My advice if you are prepared to listen to it rather than telling me to take a hike is that in any interview you should expect to be challenged by a well informed interviewer who will be aware of the views of your opponents and will seek to expose any weaknesses in your position. You need to prepare for this by sitting down with somebody who is prepared to act as devil's advocate and ask all the awkward questions that you do not want to answer so that you are ready with a convincing reply. Another trick which you will see politicians using constantly is to have a clear idea in your mind of the points that you wish to make and then make them regardless of what questions you are asked, but do it in a way that will not antagonise the interviewer to such an extent that the interview is terminated prematurely. Finally be aware that no broadcaster will tolerate an attempt to accuse an individual of improper behaviour, but hopefully you have already learnt that lesson.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 29/11/2018 - 13:48I am happy with the "harsh but fair" description and do not believe that we do anybody any favours by withholding constructive criticism.
If it was the guardian article that Larry intended to refer to I am not sure what point he thought that was going to make. Shelter come through as a responsible organisation where there was internal disquiet about the possible role of two of their unpaid board members who resigned to avoid any potential criticism of the charity. It is also made clear that the role of Shelter is to provide advice and assistance and we might as well bang our collective heads against a brick wall rather than expecting them to start acting as guarantors or provide housing. It is self-evident that in the current climate there are situations in which tenants need expert legal advice and from what I see Shelter are very successful in meeting that need, regardless of what we might think of their tactics and campaigns. That is why they will continue to receive support from government and some of the leading retailers.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 29/11/2018 - 17:33That is not at all why they will keep receiving the funding. Businesses align themselves with a Shelter (particularly at Xmas) because they believe they provide some for of shelter. Most don’t dig deep enough and assume that even though others might take issue with them ‘surely’ somewhere along the line they provide some form of practical assistance to those on the streets.

If their supporters fully understand all they do is provide advice, and even then only really to those at *threat* of homelessness (there’s not much they do with those already out on the streets), and still want to contribute to them, that’s fine but I firmly believe most do not have a clue.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 29/11/2018 - 18:41
Extract from M&S website: "Shelter's free national helpline is open all year round to offer expert advice, support and legal aid to anyone struggling with issues related to housing and homelessness, no matter what their situation. It is manned by experts who will listen to and support people, and can help them take action or negotiate on their behalf. Just one call to Shelter can be the difference between somebody losing their home and keeping it."

B&Q: "We’re celebrating one year since the launch of our partnership with Shelter. Since then, our colleagues have raised hundreds and thousands of pounds to fund Shelter’s team of specialist DIY advisers and help thousands more in housing need, by supporting the charity’s other frontline services and advice.

The DIY advisers provide practical help to those settling into a new home following a period of homelessness, as well as supporting others to stay in their current home by making essential home improvements."

It's clear that these major donors know exactly what they are supporting, as does Government. Interesting that B&Q are funding practical help as well as the advisory function.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 29/11/2018 - 19:02
B&Q receive funding from Shelter to provide these workshops (it helps push their brand too) and no doubt as an exchange, puts their collection boxes in their stores. I think it was £1.7m B&Q have had and provided ‘how to paint a wall’ help to…wait for it…500 people in need. Over THREE GRAND per person??

Shelter’s statement shows it’s about *keeping* a house someone already has rather than finding an actual homeless person new accommodation.

These businesses can only donate with individuals charity or profits on sales. These are certainly the people not aware of this.