Watch for the outrage here

The 69-year-old, who campaigned to become Kent’s Police and Crime Commissioner and vowed to support victims of domestic abuse, set out the 11 rules in a document, which was posted online after it was issued to a letting agent.

Single parents, workers on low income or zero hours contracts, families with children, pet owners, smokers and single adults will also not be considered. Only those who are able to afford rent and can provide a rent guarantee are to be accepted for his properties this year.

Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Wilson, who works alongside his wife Judith, said the criteria, which he reissues every year, was “sensible” and the result of the “financial fine tuning of the business”.

He said he issued it to agents to predominantly ensure he didn’t waste the time or money of those who couldn’t get a rent guarantee for his properties because they did not earn enough.

“It is just economics,” he said. “I live in the big bad world of reality, if I do not let properties and do not get the rent then I do not eat, I starve to death… it is the Government’s job to help poor people.

Man rents his own property to whom he pleases. Complaints in 3…2…1..

19 comments on “Watch for the outrage here

  1. Man rents his own property to whom he pleases who happen to be those likely to pay their bills and not trash the place.

    Outrage sure to follow

  2. Single parents used to be something of a goldmine for landlords. Rent was paid directly from government to the landlord; they were unlikely to want to move (low turnover is good); and they usually ended up having more children.

    Then the government screwed up by giving the rent directly to tenants, who promptly spent it all on everything except rent. Mr Wilson is right here.

    His opposition to single adults and families with children perplexes me though.

  3. Seller of product does not want to sell product to purchasers who cannot afford to purchase product. Film at ten.

  4. “His opposition to single adults and families with children perplexes me though.”

    Children make noise and if you’re not good enough to get someone to marry you, you’re not good enough for his apartments.

  5. I never rent my properties to: benefit claimants, sharers, single parents, pet owners, smokers or the lower classes (manual workers, shift-workers, people on low/insecure incomes). Families, foreigners and gays who aren’t in any of the preceding categories are all welcome. Business is business, after all.

  6. Fergus Wilson never stood as a candidate for Police and Crime Commissioner in Kent (or anywhere else for that matter).
    He can no longer be a candidate as he has a criminal conviction for assault.

    He can implement any letting policy he likes within the law.
    He appears to believe in his talent for self promotion and will probably choke on a pool of his own hubris, good luck to him.

  7. Basically he wants Dinkys. Double income, no kids yet. The sort of people who have disposable income, aren’t likely to be having wild parties, no kids to paint on the walls, no pets to cover the place in shit and mud, who will pay the rent every month and not cause him grief.

    Good on him.

  8. “His opposition to single adults and families with children perplexes me though.”

    I like children a lot; I hate their fucking mothers. I will never stay in a “child friendly” hotel because it really means “hatchet-faced shrew of a mother friendly hotel”.

  9. More seriOusby, my wife is an executive in a housing association. The change of the housing benefit operation as described by Andrew M has caused enormous problems. I point out to her the ethical dilemma: not trusting people to handle their money and pay their rent is the thin end of a wedge that leads to the Richard Murphys of the world and their Couragious State dictating all aspects of our lives for us.

    Difficult.

  10. ‘I like children a lot; I hate their fucking mothers.’

    So much anger and hatred – and in a staunch and loudly self-professed Christian, too.

    (Mind, you wouldn’t be the first Catholic to ‘like children a lot’!)

  11. James

    Ah, somebody else who appears to pay attention to me without ever themselves invading my consciousness. If you’ve contributed before I never noticed.

  12. “I point out to her the ethical dilemma: not trusting people to handle their money and pay their rent is the thin end of a wedge …”

    I don’t see the dilemma: these people are living off a dole so they are (many of them, at least) already self-classified as being unable to handle their money. Anyway it’s not their money that’s in question, it’s mine.

  13. @ Ironman

    Nah, this one is easy. I’ll take up arms against those who think the dole should be paid in tokens for state-approved living. Cash is fine and they can do what they want with it.

    Here the state is providing a house, but subcontracting it to the private sector. It also provides a whole host of protections which favour user over supplier in that arrangement. So, given that, the least the state can do is pay the bloody bill directly.

  14. @Ironman et al

    Rent/housing benefits:

    Freedom of choice*

    Allow recipient to choose whether to have it paid direct, or receive and pay landlord.

    Some know they can’t budget and want/value direct payment.

    If evicted for non-payment, direct payments in next home.

    *Freedom of choice is denied to those with Mortgages, Gov’t insists on direct payment to lender.

  15. Ironman – “Ah, somebody else who appears to pay attention to me without ever themselves invading my consciousness.”

    Why is that a surprise? There are probably little green men who have never left Rigel 5 who hate your guts. You are that much of a c*nt.

  16. The Thought Gang – “I’ll take up arms against those who think the dole should be paid in tokens for state-approved living. Cash is fine and they can do what they want with it.”

    I used to think this. Then some US states started to introduce very minor work-for-the-dole schemes for things like Food Stamps. When over three quarters of all claimants can’t be bothered turning up in order to get their money, you know the system is rife with corruption and exposing it is a good thing.

    So there should be no money benefits at all. You want to claim benefits, you can live in approved accommodation – there must be some unused barracks around. You can eat nutritious food provided by state-run food kitchens – all locally sourced in northern Scotland of course.

    The welfare rolls would disappear like dew at dawn.

  17. @SMFS

    There are ‘no booze’ cards used in some indigenous communities in Aus where alcoholism is a blight. I understand they are having a very positive effect. I can see plenty of reasons to commend the notion for claimant and society alike.

    But I’m a citizens income advocate, I’m opposed to state lifestyle intervention, I like simplicity, and I think some slopes are very slippy.. so I’m sticking with the ‘no’ side.

  18. The strange animus against plumbers is fun. Because a couple of them have padded their bills, they are all now personae non gratae. If only a stronger stance were taken against other classes of shyster, e.g. management consultants.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.