A Gloucester landlord with 30 years' experience has slammed the city council for its partnership initiative to tackle homelessness – and is warning other landlords to give the scheme a wide berth.

Charles Perkins shared his experience with Punchline-Gloucester.com in the wake of last week's news report that Gloucester City Council was renewing its Landlord Incentive Scheme and seeking new partners.

The program hooks up landlords to prospective tenants in temporary accommodation by offering financial incentives which help to smooth the pathway to achieving a settled tenancy.

So far, GCC says it has successfully matched more than 50 households with landlords, and that more properties are needed for the scheme.

But last week's news was met with cynicism by Mr Perkins, who operates a series of lettings firms and nursery services. Sharing his experience of the scheme after he took on a single mother and her children, Mr Perkins slammed the initiative as "disingenuous".

He said: "It's all very good lip service – promising a tenant that they desperately need to accommodate because temporary accommodation is costing them thousands."

Having agreed a rent of £1,800 which the council indicated the tenant could afford, combined with the scheme's incentives to take the tenant on (as well as a promise of further incentives when renewing the contract) Mr Perkins said he felt confident to participate.

However, within two months, the tenant stopped paying rent.

"This meant that I ended up with just the directly paid housing benefit element (£950) while the rest, they said, because only that benefit comes direct from the government, they could do nothing about. So we are then in a place where they are saving money by me housing tenants for them."

Mr Perkins subsequently sought a compromise agreement, proposing £1,250 per month.

"I tried to come to an agreement where [GCC] paid me some of the money and I let her stay: they said no. Really, what they were trying to do is for me to make her intentionally homeless. Then they would not have to not house her, as the cost would come from the county council.

"They tell me if I go to court and evict her, at a cost of about £2,000, they will give me all the money back - but why do I want to spend my time going to court and have all this hassle and stress so that they don't? The council are probably right, standing behind the rules and playing by the rules, but that is not how they sold the scheme to me."

In the wake of this experience, Mr Perkins said he had lost faith in a plan to offer the city council more of his properties. The scheme suggested landlords could take on tenants without having to carry out usual viability checks, he claimed, because of the reassurance that the council offered.

He has now filed a no-fault eviction claim, and added: "I wasn't going to play into their court of making her intentionally homeless, ie that she hasn't paid and then they can wash their hands of her. But they are washing their hands of me as well and while this tenant ends up homeless, that is going to cost taxpayers' money, whether its Gloucester City Council or the county. If the children go into care it costs even more."

His ultimate feeling he said, was that the scheme is fatally flawed - and that a fireproof solution lay in restructuring the plan: "To any landlord interested, I'd say no. Anybody should not be renting to the council tenants, they should be renting to the council and the council should rent it to the tenants, so that that is their responsibility as a council to house people, not to sucker me into being their social landlord."

In response to Mr Perkins' claims, Gloucester City Council made the following statement to Punchline-Gloucester.com: "We provided significant financial support to the landlord at the start of this tenancy, including a deposit equalling five weeks' rent and an upfront payment to support the rent."

The council added: "Unfortunately, there is always a risk of a tenant defaulting on their tenancy obligations. The upfront payment provided by the council would have covered any costs incurred by the landlord had action been taken to end the tenancy at this point.

"We understand that this scheme may not suit every landlord. However, where landlords do work with us, it helps support homeless households to secure a stable and sustainable home from which they can rebuild their lives with dignity following a period of homelessness."

See more: Punchline Talks! The B!G Interview with Charles Perkins