NRLA hits out as Labour appeals for more landlords to house asylum seekers

Government's mess so let them deal with it without any help from the prs LL, they may then understand how important the prs is....or maybe not. I wouldn't help them out if people's lives depended on it, sounds harsh but most of them are only here for the freebies and then take a holiday back home for Christmas.

I wouldn't trust the government with a hotel in Monopoly, let alone any of my houses.
If they want to make themselves useful, why don't they offer to buy properties off landlords at above market value and without CGT having to be paid.
Then they can do what the hell they like with them.

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 28/04/2025 - 20:25those that buy properties at auction in these kinds of areas do so for the purpose of doing this. Lots of them chip in cash and put them in generic names at best. Seen it happen. Its prolific. HMO's without the HMO requirements. No mortgage issues and don't bother with building insurance. Do Serco really check the property owner has insurance? I doubt it.
They go on about smashing the gangs that put them in boats...what about the ones that house them once they are here?

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 29/04/2025 - 07:56
People need to wake up and understand that there are no trafficking gangs. How many traffickers have they caught in the last 5 years ? NONE. This could all be stopped so easily. Just tow the small boats in to Dover behind the Border Force/RNLI vessel and destroy them. Shred the dinghies and send the outboard motors to the crusher. The supply of boats will dry up and this will all stop in days. It’s that simple. Instead the Government just send the boats back to France to be reused over and over again. I get so frustrated because nobody can see this simple solution not even Farage. So it begs the question is this all planned ?

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 28/04/2025 - 20:25
That's right: I couldn't do it even if I wanted to.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 28/04/2025 - 11:49
talk about manipulation, beware don't touch it with a barge poll, hypocrites, how dare they after what they have out us through !! Now trying to use private landlords to fix something they should be dealing with themselves and stopping the boats. Totally agree with why didn't they try the Rwanda scheme ? It's another example of how this crisis is effecting this country and those who rightfully already live here.

So, having persecuted landlords for years, imposing umpteen regulations and massive fines for any infraction, the Government wants landlords to help with a problem of their own making. With landlords leaving the sector in droves, why would those who stay in the market take illegal immigrants? Serco/ theHome Office will have to pay well over market rent.

The tenancy may be guaranteed for 5 or 7 years but prudent landlords should be wary. If the property becomes an HMO the landlord needs to be clear who is applying for the licence and what works to the property are required. I expect SERCO will make the landlord responsible for physical alterations. Having to retrofit fire doors, fire alarms in every bedroom and perhaps fire proof plasterboard on staircase ceilings can be costly.

Landlords should also bear in mind that their insurance needs to be renewed annually. Insurers need to be notified of the change of use and the initial premiums are likely to be be two to four times normal. Depending on the conduct of the tenants and any damage, premiums could shoot up in future years.

I am aware of a case (in a house with released prisoners who caused a fire) where the premiums increased ten fold from one year to the next! It might be impossible to find insurance. I expect there is an obligation to insure and a limit on SERCO’s liability for damage caused by the occupants. Paying £10,000 a year for insurance will negate any benefit from extra rent.

Landlords with mortgages should check they are not in breach. An HMO is treated differently by lenders from a standard BTL. Landlords may need to take out a different mortgage product.

Be warned. The Government regularly imposes new burdensome laws on landlords so – to anybody thinking of taking part – don’t be surprised if they stiff you later, for example by re-basing the generous initial rent to a lower figure. Receiving a "market rent" (instead of the initial above market rent) but paying many thousands a year for insurance won’t look like such a good deal.

If you are unlucky, having your property trashed and being offered peanuts won't be pleasant either.

Reply to the comment left by DP at 29/04/2025 - 12:02
I actually have an open mind about housing people from elsewhere other than GB. What I want from a tenant is (1) Pay the rent on time and in full (2) Look after the property (3) Get on with the neighbours. But even if I WANTED to do this I couldn't do it anyway. My lender/insurance company wouldn't allow it.

The Telegraph just covered this here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/should-you-let-your-property-under-labours-asylum-seeker/

It contains the following quote from a property investor who it reports as having used Serco's migrant housing scheme in the past:

"....some landlords may be pushed towards schemes like Serco’s...landlords are being squeezed from all directions – huge interest rate costs, stamp duty levies, local and national red tape, and the Renters’ Rights Bill to top it all off – notwithstanding the huge amount of tax a landlord has to pay...So when a company comes along that is government-backed and can guarantee five years of rent, that is hugely attractive."

I don't think labour has thought this one through. Firstly, from a political perspective, news like this is a gift to the Reform party. Why would a competent party that aspired to be in power for more than one term do this?

Secondly, for a party trying to get its Rental Reform Bill through parliament they seem to be continually missing the point: They need to make it MORE attractive to house domestic tenants (including social housing tenants) than it is to house asylum seekers because if they don't they are only going to exacerbate xenophobia and tension in areas where historically they have been stronger.

As a landlord, I don't care where the tenant comes from, what colour his skin is, or what religion he espouses. If the neighbours like him, he keeps the house clean, pays the rent, goes to the mosque on Sunday rather than going to watch Chelsea and spending his rent money on booze and fags then in terms of what I look for from a tenant he may turn out to be the better tenant.

However, I don't take social housing tenants because I don't have the powers to check whether they are eligible for benefits or not and if it works out that the tenant isn't eligible for benefits then the council can come and get the money back off me, even if I've had to pay interest on a mortgage that I can no longer offset against my rents. That's more of a "no thank you" than a contract with Serco even if it were possible.

If you wanted to achieve growth in the economy you wouldn't increase the minimum wage and simultaneously increase employers' national insurance contributions. You can't reconcile those two actions with nailing your flag to the mast on achieving economic growth.

And if you were able to recognise that net migration has an effect on supply of housing (as of course it does) why would you be pursuing policies that made it less attractive to house people by punishing landlords from investing in property by preventing them from offsetting their interest payments against rents?

Maybe the government should enter into contracts with organisations like Serco to house social housing tenants and make the arrangement no less attractive to landlords than housing somebody who comes over the channel in a dinghy.

Yep that's a good idea 5 year Serco contracts for UK homeless. Provided of course Serco take over all hmo licensing obligations

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 29/04/2025 - 16:16
As I've already said, this isn't something that I can currently do; neither my lender nor my insurer would allow it presently.

And I do have reservations about the Serco contract: But I have rented unencumbered (i.e. unmortgaged) property out before to a body corporate under a license to occupy and it was a great arrangement...far better than having to manage a tenant under an AST. After my initial reservations I loved it and only changed it when I had to mortgage the property, i.e. it was primarily the needs of my LENDER (but also my insurer) that stopped me doing it.

For those landlords that can do this (perhaps because Serco adjusts the contract to give the mortgage company and insurer greater security) and IF Serco as you suggest pay over market rent then I can see many landlords finding this arrangement not only attractive, but FAR more attractive than housing social housing tenants.

We already have discussions on this site about the problems of dealing with tenants who exhibit anti-social behaviour; or who have tenants living near to social housing tenants who exhibit anti-social behaviour; or landlords who are potentially faced with action against them by councils for the anti-social behaviour of their tenants. And where as I used to house social housing tenants years ago I wouldn't touch them now because it's just too risky.

If this is something that Serco wants to happen then Serco need to work with lenders and providers of landlord insurance to open up access to more mortgaged BTL properties. They are already competing against private tenants and social housing tenants in the housing market and this competition will increase. Because of this the government (and councils) need to make it MORE attractive for private landlords to house social housing tenants than asylum seekers. Perhaps the government should say to Serco that they can house social housing tenants as well under the same attractive terms for landlords but with a 20% rental premium for social housing tenants (payable by the local council).

The government needs to seriously rethink the Renters Reform Bill. The end result of this bill needs to be an arrangement that provides reciprocity between landlord and tenant and favours landlords who are investing in providing long-term rental accommodation. By not penalising them via the tax system for example.