Fraud by landlord?

pickles110564

lil_me wrote: »

What annoys me the most is it puts people off getting back into employment because the rent is so high!

What are you doing about this?
Are you buying up loads of housing stock and charging lower than market average rent?

clutton_2

as far as i am concerned, LHA is a godsend - and i know i will be flamed for this. i have 3/4 of my properties rented by single parent mums who pay a top up - some more than others. i have some who have been with me several years, and i have not increased their rent at all - (HB used to increase by a miniscule amount each year) - mainly because i knew they could not afford to pay a higher top up.

our costs as a business have gone up considerably, and like any business, if costs go up - sooner or later the customer price goes up.

i am about to restructure some rents (which will become LHA) such that i get a medium rent increase, and the tenants get a 0% top up = so we both get to win. i see nothing wrong with that at all - if the system provides for an increase - why not ?

i know several landlords who will increase their rents to way above the LHA so that tenants get to continue paying a top up and the LL gets all the increase - thats not a sound market decision in my view, as tenants may well move elsewhere to find a less greedy LL.

Lets also not forget that the risk LLs are taking in accepting LHA tenants is higher than on HB - as all rents go to the tenant and not to the LL. i dont anticipate any problems with current tenants, but, it will make my selection criteria for new tenants a bit more tricky in the future.

mel19632

Ok - either I am not explaining myself, or no-one is actually reading my threads.

I AM NOT DISCUSSING THE LEVEL OF LHA.

The issue is that the LL is saying the rent is one price, but is actually charging less.

This is to get more "housing benefit" than the claiment is entitled to and then ask them to top up less (as the claiment is not in receipt of full "HB") so that they can keep the tenant happy.

Is my post just not clear?

real1314

mel19632 wrote: »

Ok - either I am not explaining myself, or no-one is actually reading my threads.

I AM NOT DISCUSSING THE LEVEL OF LHA.

The issue is that the LL is saying the rent is one price, but is actually charging less.

This is to get more "housing benefit" than the claiment is entitled to and then ask them to top up less (as the claiment is not in receipt of full "HB") so that they can keep the tenant happy.

Is my post just not clear?

I think it's pretty clear now.

LL sets rent at £650 (for example) in line with LHA

Tenant applies for HB, gets awarded £500 pcm, tells LL they can't afford £150 top up.

LL agrees to reduce rent to £500 pcm and tells tenant.

So, the question is, whose responsibility is it to tell the HB people that the rent is now £500 pcm?

Answer: The tenant's.

So, the answer to your question is, No the LL is not committing fraud, but the tenant might be.

The LL isn't in any way shape or from, the benficiary of the HB award. It's the tenant's claim, the tenants responsibility.
The LL has done xactly what lots of people say that LL's should do - accept an affordable rent from the tenant.


Perhaps you should change the title to "Fraud by Tenant?"

Premier_2

It would be a pretty dumb tenant who agreed to such "arrangement"

The landlord is entitled to receive the amount specified in the tenancy agreement. If the tenant is not paying that amount in full, rent arrears are being accrued. - consequences of that are well known.

If the tenant and LL have come to an agreement to a reduced rent, that should be formally recorded and the respective authority advised accordingly...by the person receiving the HB

clutton_2

i see your point, but why blame the LL ?

if a LL chooses to not chase up his arrears - thats up to him

silvercar

I don't get why a landlord would accept a rent so much lower than LHA. You are saying the landlord inflates the rent figure so the tenant gets more LHA and can afford the rent. In practice LHAs are set at market rents, or possibly just below, so the idea that a landlord could set an inflated rent but it be within the LHA so that the tenat can still pay the market rent is stretching the imagination a bit.

LL sets rent at £650 (for example) in line with LHA

Tenant applies for HB, gets awarded £500 pcm, tells LL they can't afford £150 top up.

LL agrees to reduce rent to £500 pcm and tells tenant.

If LHA is £650, that should be the market rent, so why would the landlord want to only receive £500?

real1314

silvercar wrote: »

I don't get why a landlord would accept a rent so much lower than LHA. You are saying the landlord inflates the rent figure so the tenant gets more LHA and can afford the rent. In practice LHAs are set at market rents, or possibly just below, so the idea that a landlord could set an inflated rent but it be within the LHA so that the tenat can still pay the market rent is stretching the imagination a bit.



If LHA is £650, that should be the market rent, so why would the landlord want to only receive £500?

Who knows why the LL would do it, but that's what's being presented as the question, and rather bizarrely that in doing so (i.e accepting a below market rent, letting the tenant have the place on the cheap ect) the OP thinks the LL is a fraudster. Perhaps this is the ultimate in LL bashing? What a git, letting the tenant keep £150 per month off the rent!! It fair makes my blood boil the way these greedy LLs behave!!! :mad:

clutton_2

is anyone else utterly lost in all this ? or am i just having a bad day ???


i thought i "got it" - now i appear to have lost the plot again .... mmm that sunday feeling

tsstss7

The way see it no one is committing "fraud" as such as the LHA is a set amount for each claimant based on their family size and composition and the subsequent need for particular sizes of accomodation.

The claimant mentioned here has a maximum entitlement of a ratio (3/4 say) of max LHA due to their income - if the LL choses to accept this as rent surely they have just negotiated a discounted rent which I understand is the reason for introduction of LHA anyway to enable claimant to shop around for best value to themselves.

LL that increase rents become less competetive in the market to ALL and so it is hoped rents will find their natuaral rates for the area and not be distorted by HB caps.

Am I correct?