Have Private Landlords Reacted to the Bedroom Tax? | Discuss

Welcome to the Property Forum where we can share our knowledge & experiences together to become better at what we do.

 Forum Terms & Conditions


Page not looking right? Please CLICK HERE to RELOAD

Enlarge/Change font size here

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —





 

— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Related Related Topics sp_TopicIcon
Have Private Landlords Reacted to the Bedroom Tax?
25/11/2013
4:39 pm
News @ Tenant Referencing
Moderator
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 1610
Member Since:
01/08/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The explosion of the demand for rental properties is largely because it has become so difficult to purchase property. ‘Generation rent’ are the people who, perhaps five years ago, might have got a mortgage without a large deposit, but who are now unable to save for the large deposit needed for home ownership, whilst renting,  ‘catch 22’ most renters will call it.

 

By 2020, it is predicated that the number of home owners under 30 will almost half, from 2.4 to 1.3 million. Many of these people, would have been home owners before the recession, and are in relatively well-paid jobs – a ‘safer bet’ for letting agents and landlords and usually pass tenant reference checks without the need for a guarantor. There has been a large rise in the number of tenants fitting this profile.

This upward pressure on private rental stock is good news for landlords, but not so good news for people less well off, or relying on housing benefit to pay all or part of the rent, as these tenants are sometimes considered to be higher risk when it comes to affordability and receiving the rent.

According to Mike McGann, Landlord Advice Specialist at Legal 4 Landlords, most private landlords have previously been happy to accept tenants who are on housing benefit, provided that they could provide a reliable guarantor. However, recent changes to housing benefit, from April 2013, popularly called ‘bedroom tax,’ has altered the amount that can be paid to landlords – and the difference will need to be paid by the tenants to the landlords, which they find difficult to find given that they are relying on benefits.

How much does the bedroom tax cost?

Two examples provides by Evictions South East: The Smith family had two children and a three bedroom home, and they have been paying their rent via housing benefit. But one of the Smith children left home last year, which now means that they have a spare bedroom. Their rent is £100 a week, and the housing benefit has paid this. But under the new rules, they would have lost 14 percent of the eligible rent, because they now have a spare bedroom. This means that the Smith family would need to find £14 a week, £61.00 a month or £728.00 a year.

Example two, the Smiths’ neighbours, the Browns, have an even bigger problem. They have been receiving housing benefit of £200 a week to cover their home, which has had two small spare bedrooms. They now find that they will be responsible for finding 25 percent of the eligible rent, so £50 a week, 216.00 a month, or £2600 a year. This could be more, depending on who lives with you and other factors.

The bedroom tax and rent arrears

By September 2013, it was predicated that about 50,000 people had already fallen behind with rent and so were facing eviction. For the private landlord, who has an array of tenants to choose from, it is no wonder that they are more likely in future to want to rent to the relatively affluent ‘generation rent’ over somebody who is receiving housing benefit.

But this causes the Government a problem; these people have not made themselves homeless, and the Government has a responsibility to house them. With a surplus of tenants, it is likely that some of these families will end up in expensive bed and breakfast accommodation, which probably costs the Government more than the 14 or 25 percent than they are saving through the ‘bedroom tax.’ This is particularly a problem in larger houses, where it is likely that there might be one or more spare rooms, which the tenant will need to pay for.

Has the bedroom tax influenced landlords?

The outcome of these changes can only be that landlords remain able to be selective with who they rent their properties to, and the safe bet is always going to be the private tenant, in work, who can most easily cover the rent.

Legal 4 Landlords, one of the UK largest providers of tenant referencing and rent guarantees has compared their reference data from this year (after the bedroom tax came in to effect in April 2013) with the same time last year.

There reference data reveals that 28% of tenants between April and October 2012 where is receipt of housing benefit, compared to just 20% of tenants in April and October 2013.

This is a clear indication that less housing benefit tenants are being considered by private landlords which will only exacerbate the problems faced within social housing.

Written by Sue Ralston4snet.co.uk
 

Previous topics:

Tenants guarantors and their responsibilities

Student Tenants Much Less Likely to be Evicted for Rent Arrears

26/11/2013
1:46 am
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2897
Member Since:
11/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Any social tenant that complains about having to pay the under occupancy penalty for social accommodation should look at someone on LHA who receives HB commensurate with their domestic circumstances.

Therefore why should they not be subject to the same benefits regime as a HB tenant in the private sector?

Why should the state provide them with spare bedrooms at taxpayer cost!?

Most social tenants can afford the bedroom tax as it is disparagingly described!

What they have to get rid of is 

Sky TV

Fags

Booze

Any vehicle

Expensive designer clothes 

Holidays 

Going out

Drugs

Then they will find magically they have enough to pay for the luxury of a spare room

Apparently there is another way of avoiding this tax.

ALL you need to do is work 16 hrs per week.

If a tenant can’t be bothered to get off their fat arse to work 16 hrs per week to avoid paying this spare room penalty then I don’t see why the tax payer should be bothered to keep them in a property bigger than their needs

Councils do NOT need to put these people in B & B if they refuse to pay for the subsidy; they can discharge their homelessness responsibilities to the PRS.

If a tenant refuses to take the accommodation offered then the council has NO further responsibility to do anything for that tenant.

I don’t know why councils aren’t doing this and saving themselves fortunes in TA costs.

If a social tenant refuses to pay the subsidy and is removed from the council accommodation and is offered a place in some godforsaken Northern town then they should take it or the council washes their hands of them.

I want to know why councils are incurring massive TA costs when they may use this discharge of housing responsibility to the PRS.

I suspect a political agenda!

Councils do not want to export their voters; mostly Labour voter!!

Gerrymandering it used to be called!!

It doesn’t make much political sense exporting your Labour voters to already predominately Labour areas.

Which they tend to be in Northern towns!………………………….Which is where all the cheap rental property tends to be.

What needs to happen is to socially and economically cleanse ALL social tenants who cannot afford the rent due to the changed benefit system; to cheaper areas.

Most of these are up North.

This is so cheap as it is still an economic wasteland; now built on ZERO hrs and low wage contracts.

The poor should be moved away from expensive areas to the cheaper ones so that the welfare bill may be reduced further.

Do we really want the lazy; feckless benefit claimants down  the expensive south!!??…………………………….I don’t think so.

So to reduce the benefit bill people will have to move to where they can afford.

This applies to benefit claimants as well as the normal working population.

Most can avoid all this if they worked only 16 hrs per week.

If you can’t be bothered to do even that you deserve everything that happens to you!!

However I have to say in defence of some of these social tenants who are disabled that they do need their spare rooms to manage their disability.

These tenants should be removed from having to pay the room subsidy.

I think the govt has used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and unfairly disabled people have been unwittingly caught up in the spare room costs issues.

This would be EASY for govt to solve.

Just a brief footnote; you do realise that 400000 social homes have been taken by EU migrants in recent years.

So now you know why social accommodation is under so much pressure!!

One of the other major reasons that there has NOT been a wholesale movement of tenants to cheaper areas is because the govt has supplied the sticking plaster of DHP!

This usually last a year.

So next May there will be more tenants unable to meet their rent as the DHP funds will have been exhausted by then; for those particular tenants!!!!

 Private LL have NOT had to react to the under occupancy regulations as it doesn’t affect the PRS.

The OBC is the only benefit change that affects the PRS..

It is ONLY social accommodation that is affected by this under occupancy penalty; so we PRS LL aren’t really interested in what a social LL has to do!!!!

LHA has ALWAYS affected the amount of rooms a council will pay for.

Bearing in mind that it is NOT the property size which governs the amount of LHA payable; it is the domestic situation.

So if a HB tenant who would normally qualify for a single room rate; can persuade a LL to rent him a mansion then that is the LL prerogative.

I don’t think the council would be so impressed with the council tax bill it would have to pay though!!

Remember tenants now have to pay 10% of the CT bill; so it is unlikely that a tenant will wish to take on a property that would cost him more in CT than needed.

Again a BRILLIANT idea by the govt to force councils to decide what they wish to do with council tax money.

This will show  up the feckless councils who would rather pay all the CT bill for the lazy benefit claimants rather than make than pay something and therefore have a detrimental effect on other council services.

So let us see would I vote for a party which prefers to pay all the council tax bills of the unemployed or would I prefer to have council services cut!…………………………………….Hmm! what would one do!!??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26/11/2013
11:05 am
Devonian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 67
Member Since:
17/09/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

<a
 However, recent changes to housing benefit, from April 2013, popularly called ‘bedroom tax,’ has altered the amount that can be paid to landlords – and the difference will need to be paid by the tenants to the landlords, which they find difficult to find given that they are relying on benefits.

The so-called ‘bedroom tax’ only applies to those in social housing.  Those receiving Housing Benefit and renting in the Private Sector have only received the amount for their family needs (rooms needed depending on ages and sexes of children, number of adults, etc) for years now.  The PRS LL will not be receiving less unless the family need is less (until UC, of course, when the whole thing is turned on its head anyway).

28/11/2013
4:54 pm
Patricia A
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 999
Member Since:
12/06/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Paul:

So let us see would I vote for a party which prefers to pay all the council tax bills of the unemployed or would I prefer to have council services cut!…………………………………….Hmm! what would one do!!??

 

– See more at: http://www.landlordreferencing…..ax/#p18315

 

Cameron is already sweating over the benefits and the large incoming immigration due soon. 

Cameron  thinks the beer swilling , **** ******* **** **** ******** ******* ***** **** **** **** ***** ******* ********* ******** *** **** ****** ********** ************ **** *********** ************* smoking other one is going to get in. We know the beer swilling persons policy on immigration but nothing else!!   It may be out the frying pan……..

On Borgen. The manager of the TV station said. ” We do not want interesting intellectual debates that teach the population to think. A TV station runs on the amount of viewers it has” Then the maths was done. How much to make a programme and split the cost between how many viewers. The less cost per viewer the better. So you put programmes on that appeal to the mor…. I mean masses. So which politician identifies with our masses the most? 

05/12/2013
1:33 pm
Herb
Guest
Guests

Devonian said : The so-called ‘bedroom tax’ only applies to those in social housing.  Those receiving Housing Benefit and renting in the Private Sector have only received the amount for their family needs (rooms needed depending on ages and sexes of children, number of adults, etc) for years now.  The PRS LL will not be receiving less.

I’ll back up what Devonian says – which makes me ask what the point of the article is?

 

06/12/2013
10:41 am
therealdemon
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 49
Member Since:
04/09/2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I love this – ‘The Bedroom Tax’ – typical scaremongering by the Press and News Companies – it is not a tax at all, it is simply saying that if you live in a property that is too big for you and you are in receipt of Housing Benefit, it will be capped to encourage people to move into smaller properties that will free up the larger ones for larger families whether they are on benefit or not.

 

Now in this example :-

Two examples provides by Evictions South East: The Smith family had two children and a three bedroom home, and they have been paying their rent via housing benefit. But one of the Smith children left home last year, which now means that they have a spare bedroom. Their rent is £100 a week, and the housing benefit has paid this. But under the new rules, they would have lost 14 percent of the eligible rent, because they now have a spare bedroom. This means that the Smith family would need to find £14 a week, £61.00 a month or £728.00 a year.

 

The saving to the family budget by having one teenage child leave home is possibly 2-3x what the additional cost of £728.00 is to the family so financially, they are better off.

I get really fed up with people that live on benefits and expect the Tax Payers to fund their Holidays, Cars, Alcohol & Cigarette Consumption etc.

In the recession of the early 1980’s, again caused by the previous Labour Government, I found myself made redundant and looking for new work.  At the time I was in rented accommodation and NEVER got all my rent paid by benefits, it was 80% and I had to find the balance – why this change to paying 100% of the rent was ever introduced was madness by the Labour Party.

Now, you take Bob Crow the Union Leader on a salary more than Double the salary of the PM and MP’s refusing to give up his Council House… what a hypocrite that man is.  He slags of ‘Big Bosses’ on their large salaries yet earns £150,000 per annum and pays cheap rent for a Council Property that would more likely benefit one of the workers he claims to represent.

The country is effectively bankrupt and ANY Government that came to power would have to make massive spending reductions in all areas including those on benefit and before anyone pipes up about the ‘Rich’, if you check HMRC the top 10% of earners in the UK pay MORE in various Taxes that the rest of the working population put together and it is these ‘RICH’ people that put their investments into Business’s that create new homes, new jobs etc.

Sorry, rant over.

06/12/2013
11:46 am
therealdemon
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 49
Member Since:
04/09/2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A quick addendum to my previous post, they cannot even get their figures correct.

If you deduct £14 from £100, it is NOT 14% of their rent.

The calculation would be 100 / 22.8 x 2.8 which would be a £12.28 deduction.  This is proven by taking the balance £87.72 and then adding 14% to make £100.

 

This means even their figure of £728.00 is incorrect, it would be a reduction of £638.56

06/12/2013
11:50 am
Mary Latham
Member
Suporter
Forum Posts: 2193
Member Since:
17/05/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The problem is that local authorities and RSL’s haven’t got the smaller properties that people need and they are trapped in a property that is too big for them even when they want to move.  They haven’t the foresight or money to do what private landlords ALWAYS do – respond to the needs of the market and the only way forward is to work with us in creative ways.

I have written an article about how I see that working which will appear in Your Property Network Magazine in January – it is too big to post here 2K words.  I believe that there is a massive opportunity for the PRS to save the day if Government, local authorities and RSL’s just think outside of the box and I have explained how landlords can approach them to make this happen.

Once again private landlords are the solution NOT the problem, especially active members of LRS who will protect communities by only taking well behaved tenants.

Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets  

My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is available on Amazon title.  Property For Rent – Investing in the UK: Will You Survive the Mayhem? http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1484855337

Follow me on Twitter @landlordtweets

06/12/2013
11:55 am
Mary Latham
Member
Suporter
Forum Posts: 2193
Member Since:
17/05/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

An excellent reply on my Face book page

Dipak Natha rent to rent summary:
One way agreement Exploitation of an artificial market based on time honoured fear and greed. 
(low interest rate mortgages).

Original property owner is a capital gains speculator or in heavy negative equity. (Waiting to sell)
Probably same property owners who brought on speculation and were subsidising the mortgage with own money every months. They are not landlords. 

New landlord doesn’t care just wants to use ‘other peoples money’ to make profit. 
Timebomb waiting to be regulated or stopped. 
Would you rent out your car to a taxi service company? Wonder what state you get it back in. Lol

I have a principle which stops me entering this so called creative market – don’t take on other landlords lemons.

Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets  

My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is available on Amazon title.  Property For Rent – Investing in the UK: Will You Survive the Mayhem? http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1484855337

Follow me on Twitter @landlordtweets

06/12/2013
12:27 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2897
Member Since:
11/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mary Latham said
The problem is that local authorities and RSL’s haven’t got the smaller properties that people need and they are trapped in a property that is too big for them even when they want to move.  They haven’t the foresight or money to do what private landlords ALWAYS do – respond to the needs of the market and the only way forward is to work with us in creative ways.
I have written an article about how I see that working which will appear in Your Property Network Magazine in January – it is too big to post here 2K words.  I believe that there is a massive opportunity for the PRS to save the day if Government, local authorities and RSL’s just think outside of the box and I have explained how landlords can approach them to make this happen.
Once again private landlords are the solution NOT the problem, especially active members of LRS who will protect communities by only taking well behaved tenants.
Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets  
My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is available on Amazon title.  Property For Rent – Investing in the UK: Will You Survive the Mayhem? http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1484855337

 

 

Would you be able to post a link to this site on maybe this post on  your article once it comes out!?

 

06/12/2013
3:18 pm
Amy
Guest
Guests

Therealdemon. I love rants.

I cannot understand why a family can have still have subsidised social housing when they no longer need it. 

There are lovely new social homes by me. They have been up 7 years.

The families that live in them now have new cars. A boat and a 4 x 4 . is this social housing? I am sure they could afford to save and buy. HP on a new car would be the same as a deposit. Get your oldest son/ relative to get a loan and you can use it as deposit to buy 

06/12/2013
4:14 pm
Patricia A
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 999
Member Since:
12/06/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mary is right about there not being enough small properties. I knew single mom’s with a baby living in 3 bed council properties and when the bedroom tax came in they have had to down size and found it very difficult. 

The problem is. I did some market research on my own properties. I am actually thinking of selling my smaller flats if I can and upsizing.

I find that in the smaller flats the tenants move quite often because of jobs relocation or the original one baby family getting bigger.

The small families I originally had in 3 bed properties have been tenants for years because the families have grown into the 3 bedrooms . 

06/12/2013
6:26 pm
LyndonBaker
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1805
Member Since:
11/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

That people refer to the Spare Room Subsidy as the “Bedroom Tax” proves the old saying that if you tell a lie loudly and often enough people will believe it. The key word is SUBSIDY that taxpayers pay for.

 

07/12/2013
10:30 am
Mary Latham
Member
Suporter
Forum Posts: 2193
Member Since:
17/05/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Paul B. Articles are not published on line because this is a hard copy magazine, it can be read on an IPhone or Pad otherwise the only option is to buy the magazine for £6.95 a month but they do offer the first issue free

Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets  

My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is available on Amazon title.  Property For Rent – Investing in the UK: Will You Survive the Mayhem? http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1484855337

Follow me on Twitter @landlordtweets

28/03/2014
1:03 pm
brassedoffbritain
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 131
Member Since:
16/05/2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A year on, figures suggest that just 6% of tenants have actually moved so what I’d like to know is what the hell the councils are doing with the £30million unspent emergency housing fund ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?

28/03/2014
4:44 pm
therealdemon
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 49
Member Since:
04/09/2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

CAN WE PLEASE GET OUR FACTS CORRECT AND STOP THE MEDIA HYPE:

There is no Bedroom Tax, it does not exist, it is only in the minds of the BBC who started their left wing crap this ‘name’ is used and all the current coalition are trying to do is to FREE UP larger homes for larger families… there is NO TAX.

A cap on the amount of money being handed over in rent was well overdue, many landlords, private and housing associations twigged on they could ask what they liked as the tax payer was picking up the bill and for years have got away with it… when rents are up to 1/3rd higher than a mortgage payment on the same property, there is something clearly wrong with the system.

 

Now, despite the fact I am NOT on Benefits, I did, until today, live in a very large 3 bedroom Semi on my own.  I have sold it to a younger family with 2 children and moved into a much smaller flat…. the benefit to ME is that a family now has a lovely large home with an EPC of ‘B’ due to the work I did to it, I have made a very nice profit thank you and re-invested that profit into a British Manufacturer and bought and Aston Martin DB9 with some of that profit.

Seems to be a ‘win-win’ all round to me – !!!!!!

29/03/2014
4:17 am
londonlandlord
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 208
Member Since:
29/08/2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Social housing is to support people socially when they need it and should not be extended beyond that need at the expense of others. I saw a family who were all jammed into a two bedroom flat because the council did not have any larger accommodation available and a lady who’s kids had all left home was lording it up in a three bed house paid for by benefits.

I would like to say she should cut her cloth to suit her coin, but I think in her case having never worked because of one aliment or another over half a century that would have meant her cloth would have meant living in a cardboard box, however she said she should not have to move because it is where her kids grew up and it was the family home. “NO” it was not the family home for ever it was the family home while you had a family living in it and now the family has gone and another person needs it you should go to.

Social housing fills a social need and when that need is no longer then to continue to draw against that support is socially unacceptable, I think the government has given people the soft option pay for the extra room you don’t need or move on, I would have given them the hard option don’t need it anymore them your out.SurprisedLaugh

29/03/2014
3:55 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2897
Member Since:
11/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Absolutely such social housing should be for the domestic circumstances of the time.

Soon as they have changed you have to move.

No 1 bed properties where you live!?………………………………..tough you’ll have to move to where there are some.

Other end of the country!?…………………………….tough; you’ll have to move there

Away from your community!?…………………………………..tough everyone has to live to where they can afford; create a community somewhere cheaper!

Everyone knows that most of the ones complaining about the SRS are the ones taking the proverbial out of the system.

Just look at white Dee off Benefits St!!

How she has managed to get away with to date I just don’t know.

Just shows you how stupid the system is.

So if a parent dies can we all claim we are too depressed to work and need all benefits to live on!??

If I went to every one who stated they could NOT afford the SRS I could guarantee I could find a way they could afford it.

Trouble is it might mean them working 16 hrs pw or giving up fags; booze, going out, holidays, expensive clothes, sky tv, mobiles etc

If these people refuse to move they should be moved to the PRS to free up the larger property for overcrowded families, some of whom are in VERY,VERY expensive TA!!

29/03/2014
5:45 pm
LyndonBaker
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1805
Member Since:
11/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There was a recent Matthew Wright programme on people not paying the Licence fee. Wrighty is about as far-left as you can go and rarely does a programme go by without some comment about bankers, tax-dodgers, the rich etc.

However even he was amazed that everyone phoning in saying that they could not afford the television licence happily paid a monthly Sky subscription. He even told one that she could give up her Sky and pay for a licence but she claimed she “had to have it for my kids“.

How many who claim they are being penalised by the Spare Room Subsidy will have Sky, i-phones and smoke?

29/03/2014
8:39 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2897
Member Since:
11/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

LyndonBaker said
There was a recent Matthew Wright programme on people not paying the Licence fee. Wrighty is about as far-left as you can go and rarely does a programme go by without some comment about bankers, tax-dodgers, the rich etc.

However even he was amazed that everyone phoning in saying that they could not afford the television licence happily paid a monthly Sky subscription. He even told one that she could give up her Sky and pay for a licence but she claimed she “had to have it for my kids“.

How many who claim they are being penalised by the Spare Room Subsidy will have Sky, i-phones and smoke?

 

I can’t afford sky

Freeview is what I have to put up with.

Mind you I am on a private pension and not on state benefits so I suppose I have different priorities!?

Is NOT having Sky now considered as a measure of child poverty.

It just confirms what we have always known about the feckless  benefit scroungers.

Sky; mobiles fags and clothes are far more important than paying rent and other bills.

That is why benefit scroungers are villified by most of the population who resent having the p taken out of them.

I pray benefits are substantially further reduced the next govt.

If anyone on benefits has money left over after the basics then they are receiving too much welfare!!

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 755

Currently Online:
16 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

PaulBarrett: 2897

Mary Latham: 2193

LyndonBaker: 1805

David Price: 1681

Patricia A: 999

DATA CONTROL: 970

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2579

Members: 6461

Moderators: 6

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 3

Topics: 4550

Posts: 31223

Newest Members:

bjdore, nichola1972, casa1862, stubeattie, julietalbot, roymussell

Moderators: SamiiB: 455, News @ Tenant Referencing: 1610, laura: 15, Chloe: 107, lucybarr: 0, jaswhite: 20

Administrators: Paul Routledge: 3418

/* ]]> */