Birmingham city council is providing incentives to landlords who offer 12 month fixed tenancies to those on the authority’s homeless and housing registers.
The scheme will enable landlords to select from a range of incentives such as specialist insurance, rental deposits or rental guarantees.
A spokeswoman for the council says: “In the last decade, homelessness has risen exponentially and a lack of affordable housing, as well as the impact of the Covid pandemic across the city, is only exacerbating the situation with Birmingham receiving more than 6,000 homeless applications in the last year.
“With 13,000 people on [the council’s] housing register, it can no longer meet the current level of demand needed to prevent homelessness across the city. It’s therefore imperative that we unlock the potential of the private-rented sector to provide housing for those who are most in need.
“I’m extremely pleased that we have been able to launch this scheme that will provide the reassurances that landlords in the private-sector need, to allow us to rent their properties to those with lower incomes and provide much needed housing.”
At the launch of the scheme, 93 households from the council’s homeless register were identified and paired with landlords in the private rented sector who have used the scheme to accept new tenancies.
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Norwich City Council tried something like this a few yrs ago, total non starter, waste of time, not the sort of tenants I want in my properties.
My properties will remain empty if unable to source my own occupants.
These homeless aren't homeless.
There are plenty of properties available.
But they would need to MOVE.
You know just like those not reliant on welfare do all the time.
I'd rather my teeth were pulled than assist any scum council.
At the start of lockdown I was approached by the council to see if I would consider housing some of their tenants. They were offering amazing money and 24 hour security. The latter was a major red flag, he said himself he wouldn’t do it if it was his property so I didn’t. Sometimes you need a lot more than a few tiny incentives like insurance, rent guarantee and deposit which you can get anyway.
Been there, done that...........got the destroyed property and the Council attempting to walk away denying all responsibility...................NO THANKS.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 No chance.
I don't believe Councils appreciate how detested they are by LL.
Of course the feeling is mutual as Councils certainly detest LL.
Councils do all they can to prevent LL receiving their rent and evicting when tenants breach their contracts.
No wonder LL want nothing to do with the tenant detritus that are most Council homeless
I was approached last year by a Council Accommodation finder, although he initially told me he was from the Council a lie. However he was offering over the top rent so I went along with it for a bit, it was for an Iranian Family a man + 4 Children no talk of wife, things were going ok until I got site of Contract then alarm bells starter ringing and cancelled. The reason being it said the rent would be paid to me directly but the Tenant was at liberty to change it and have it paid to him at any time, it also said once the Council had Placed the Tenant their responsibility had ended. Why on earth did they put those clauses in there, if its rent it should be paid directly only no changing about by the Tenant they know what the money was for, it like they were giving him the opportunity to with hold or use the rent for his own lifestyle, so that didn't work they lost the accommodation for being so under-handed.
What Councils being deceitful.....................surely not!?
When a council comes out with the words '' we want to work with landlords '' alarm bell should ring loud and clear, walk away.
If Councils wish LL to assist them then this is what they would need to do.
Pay 5 weeks deposit to the LL.
Pay 1 month rent in advance even though UC paid in arrears.
So basically the Council pays out and then receives the UC.
Ensure that the full contractual rent and NOT just the HB element of HB is paid direct to LL with a written guarantee that no 'clawback' from LL will ever occur UNLESS of course a LL can be proven to a criminal level of evidence to have assisted defrauding the DWP.
Pay for all of the costs of eviction if rent default occurs no matter how long it takes.
Doing all this will still be far cheaper than TA costs.
No Council will agree to this as they are ideologically opposed to the concept of private LL.
So none of the above will happen and so few LL will choose to assist desperate councils.
Councils are now reaping what they have sown over many years.
Few LL will shed a tear for these scum councils
No sorry disagree with you on this one Paul.
Council should be who the contract is with. They can let to whoever they want but THEY pick up all damages, voids if tenants decide to leave. It wouldn't be an AST. It would be a contract drawn up by our lawyers in our favour. They could have a choice of 1, 3 or even 5 years & I want the house back in SAME condition or better. Payment is upfront bit like a commercial contract.
Offer that and we can talk
Nope just totally reprehensible Councils advising tenants to wait til eviction rather than house them at expiry of a S21
What planet are these councillors from?
Try Venus they have just found signs of life there!
"Councillors - Life" a supreme example of an oxymoron.
Cripes....!!!!! Rather unfair on the Venusians I would proffer...!!
My sincere apologies to the Venusians.
Unless BCC are willing to act as full and unlimited guarantor, they haven’t a chance in hell.
Oh, sorry, do my eyes deceive me? A council WANTS private landlords, do they? This cannot be true, because:
1. Councils persistently, nationwide, have hated landlords and regularly try to trick, harrass and campaign against them. Look how many councils want S21 banned for example. But now they want our help?
2. The public hate landlords and regularly express their displeasure at landlords receiving public funds, or existing at all. So we’d better not upset the haters.
3. Boris and central govt have confirmed that they don’t want private landlords either, so maybe these councils and the govt can get together for a quick conflab to decide what they really do want?!
Until then, I’m out!
The irony of this housing crisis is that it has been completely manufactured by disjointed government policy over the last 20 years and the revolving door of career politicians trying to make the most of their 15 mins of fame on the Westminster gravy train, who at the same time regurgitate the same rhetoric about dealing with the housing crisis.
Since 2008 social house building has dwindled when the usual demands for affordable housing numbers in any development in the s106 were traded for infrastructure as central government cut funding to local councils to reduce the deficit. To this day, this has not been reversed, and the current planning consultation plans to relax that further. At the same time as the left hand killed the social house building market stone dead, the right hand started punching the PRS with all the legislative changes we all know about, the same PRS that the government now needs to house the 1.1million tenants on the social housing waiting list.
As landlords start to get out and the PRS shrinks and with the inevitable wave of s21s next year, as those remaining choose to only select the safe, employed "alpha" tenants in the marketplace, where are these people going to live? I’m not sure the penny has dropped in Westminster, but councils are waking up to the fact that this perfect storm that has been brewing for about 12 years or so is about to start. Maybe Boris has with his half-baked crazy 95% mortgage strategy, but that won’t help of the people the councils have on their waiting lists.
Unfortunately however achieved we haven't seen homeless families on the streets.
So they are being housed somewhere no doubt at great cost to the Council Tax payer.
As long as the vast majority of the homeless are hidden from view then the Govt attacks on the PRS will continue.
To the populace at large there seems to be no obvious effects of Govt attacks on the PRS.
So Govt can attack LL even more.
There seems to be sufficient TA around though it would be far cheaper if such properties were let at market rents with Councils paying the difference between LHA and market rents.
A lot cheaper than TA!!
Why not allow tenants who qualify for Welfare of all types to be allowed to obtain a mortgage.
After all you can't get a much more stable income than the Welfare Wage.
Let Councils provide the deposit.
They can put a charge on the property for the deposit amount.
I'm sure there would be hundreds of thousands of LL only too willing to sell their properties to their HB tenants!!
Paul That is actually a brilliant idea today. Now how many deposits would you get out of Shelters £61million income. They can also guarantor the ‘homeowner’ Be bankrupt by 2023
Shelter would not provide such assistance as they know tenants are feckless.
As suggested they'd be bankrupted pretty quickly by those feckless tenants.
As so many landlords are selling up councils should buy these houses up and rent them directly as social housing.
But they sold off council houses because they couldn't manage them so why would they want more?
Please login to comment