FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Removing legal renter and employees protections
Removing legal renter and employees protections
Jump to: Newest in thread
The imminent Renter Rights Act is causing trouble. 208,000 dwellings (about 5% of PRS supply) off market. Separately section 21 (which will be banned under RRA) is the single largest cause of homelessness. For landlords seven month court wait for a section eight which is presumably why landlords exiting, plus the extra 2% income tax on rents.
Unintended consequences |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
Interfering in the natural order of things nearly always has negative consequences, regardless of how good your intentions may have been.
I don’t get why it’s always a battle by the left to make doing business harder. We already had some of the best workers rights and protections in the entire world. What about business owners rights?
I can’t really comment on the landlord side of things, but if it’s a labour plan it will no doubt make it all but impossible for a landlord to get rid of a tenant who doesn’t pay the rent? So there will be a massive number giving up and investing only in commercial property? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
My son is caught up in this
He recently got divorced, moved out with the clothes on his back
So he buys himself a new house, 6 months later he finds a new partner and he moves into her flat.
She doesn’t get on with her 19 yr old son and throws him out. As a favour my son let him ten his house.
As the relationship started to come apart at the seams he served the boy with his notice to vacate the premises as he wanted to move back into his own home
Boy has dug his heels in and has gone to local authority claiming homelessness. They chased him and told him to get an eviction notice from his landlord
Now comes the good bit, as he was doing this as a favour he now finds the boy has more rights to live there than he has even though he owns the house.
So he has now had to go and register as a landlord an apply for a court tribunal to shift him.
That was 10 months ago. The boy has now decided to stop paying rent
My son is currently £9k out of pocket and losing money by the day.
To top it all he was himself made redundant from his job.
Now he has moved into my house. No problem except 50% of the week he has custody of his 3 boys and we are now overcrowded an the Council will do Fcku all about it.
Tenants have more rights than the landlord now it would appear |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
"My son is caught up in this
He recently got divorced, moved out with the clothes on his back
So he buys himself a new house, 6 months later he finds a new partner and he moves into her flat.
She doesn’t get on with her 19 yr old son and throws him out. As a favour my son let him ten his house.
As the relationship started to come apart at the seams he served the boy with his notice to vacate the premises as he wanted to move back into his own home
Boy has dug his heels in and has gone to local authority claiming homelessness. They chased him and told him to get an eviction notice from his landlord
Now comes the good bit, as he was doing this as a favour he now finds the boy has more rights to live there than he has even though he owns the house.
So he has now had to go and register as a landlord an apply for a court tribunal to shift him.
That was 10 months ago. The boy has now decided to stop paying rent
My son is currently £9k out of pocket and losing money by the day.
To top it all he was himself made redundant from his job.
Now he has moved into my house. No problem except 50% of the week he has custody of his 3 boys and we are now overcrowded an the Council will do Fcku all about it.
Tenants have more rights than the landlord now it would appear "
No good deed goes unpunished |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t get why it’s always a battle by the left to make doing business harder. We already had some of the best workers rights and protections in the entire world. What about business owners rights?"
It's because many on the left honestly believe that company directors do nothing but sit in their tower counting all the money created by the poor downtrodden workers. They think that companies are a way to get poor people to make stuff, which the directors sell and pocket all the cash.
You see it regularly on here with people claiming that the only reason that the government pays benefits is because companies are deliberately underpaying their staff. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You see it regularly on here with people claiming that the only reason that the government pays benefits is because companies are deliberately underpaying their staff."
May one object to a state of affairs whereby companies that pay dividends and post large profits are employing people who receive money from our taxes? There needs to be a moral way for us taxpayers to not subsidise those working a full week. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
"I don’t get why it’s always a battle by the left to make doing business harder. We already had some of the best workers rights and protections in the entire world. What about business owners rights?
It's because many on the left honestly believe that company directors do nothing but sit in their tower counting all the money created by the poor downtrodden workers. They think that companies are a way to get poor people to make stuff, which the directors sell and pocket all the cash.
You see it regularly on here with people claiming that the only reason that the government pays benefits is because companies are deliberately underpaying their staff."
Yeah, my post was a little rhetorical. The extreme left, which is what it is now, there is no left just this extreme socialist, communist fanaticism to nationalise every small business and have everyone working directly for the state. They seem to think a small company employing half a dozen people is making billions by working them to death and paying them next to nothing. Not every business owner is Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 10 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"
You see it regularly on here with people claiming that the only reason that the government pays benefits is because companies are deliberately underpaying their staff.
May one object to a state of affairs whereby companies that pay dividends and post large profits are employing people who receive money from our taxes? There needs to be a moral way for us taxpayers to not subsidise those working a full week."
A minimum wage exists and a person can either accept a contract of employment or not. If they accept a role that pays the minimum wage and their personal circumstances would be such that their mortgage / rent, bills, family size and any other commitments would not be enough to sustain them without benefits, who is it at fault?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
Also a common situation is where the only earner in a household works a part time job for 16 hours or so, the other parent doesn’t work and so there’s a massive benefits top up. Very often they each get carers allowance for looking after their own kids, DLA for ADHD for a couple of the kids which also triggers an extra additional universal credit top up.
We seem to have reversed the thinking…. “You need to pay me X because I can get that from benefits while I’m sat on my arse doing nothing”. Where what should be happening is people are paid for the benefit they bring to the business they work for.
Minimum wage may have increased some people’s earning but it has definitely limited the earning power of others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"May one object to a state of affairs whereby companies that pay dividends and post large profits are employing people who receive money from our taxes?"
Not really. Even if a bank is earning money hand over fist, it'll still need a cleaner, and that cleaner will be on minimum wage. If the cleaner has a wife and 2 kids to support, that wage won't be enough, and they'll need to claim benefits. It's not the greedy bank's fault that the cleaner has no skills and too many dependants.
How would you address this issue if you were to get into power? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also a common situation is where the only earner in a household works a part time job for 16 hours or so, the other parent doesn’t work and so there’s a massive benefits top up. Very often they each get carers allowance for looking after their own kids, DLA for ADHD for a couple of the kids which also triggers an extra additional universal credit top up.
We seem to have reversed the thinking…. “You need to pay me X because I can get that from benefits while I’m sat on my arse doing nothing”. Where what should be happening is people are paid for the benefit they bring to the business they work for.
Minimum wage may have increased some people’s earning but it has definitely limited the earning power of others. "
if you think being at home looking after a child or adult with additional needs us doing nothing then you have never had to do it. Also the pittance they give on carers allowance is ridiculous. Unpaid carers save the government a lot of money. As for a weeks full time care its anything from £640 to £1800 a week. Carers allowance is less than £100pw ans is counted as income for most things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You see it regularly on here with people claiming that the only reason that the government pays benefits is because companies are deliberately underpaying their staff.
May one object to a state of affairs whereby companies that pay dividends and post large profits are employing people who receive money from our taxes? There needs to be a moral way for us taxpayers to not subsidise those working a full week."
But wages and benefits are now all down to government minimum wage is pushing up costs as it is.
And don't for get there is at least 30% tax on dividends if you include CT tax possible more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
