Pros and cons of renting to a full time Carer and her disabled child

barnaby-bear

lil'H wrote: »

If the Mum is a full time carer then she is going to be a long term renter, it is also unlikely that she will want the hassle of moving year after year, nor would she want to keep uprooting her child. Could be a good long term tennant for you. Also very few benefit claimants cause problems on rent, those that do are the minority who have no respect for anything. This lady is on benefits so that she can care for her child, not so that she can get a "free ride". I'd ask for reference as you would with any other tennant, ask for a monthly standing order to pay rent, tell her you can't accept rent payments as and when her benefit comes through, and then welcome them with open arms. But it's entirely your choice.

All issues if he doesn't want a long-term tenant i.e. moving a disabled child, finding suitable alternative accommodation in school area that will take DSS etc could be hard for her and cause issues if he needs to sell/claim back the house.

icebergx

I do eventually want to sell the property but am prepared to wait a while, until the market recovers, to do so. I'd hope this would be in 1-3 years and, idealy, I'd like to have 1 tenant staying in the property for the duration. Lower fees, building a good relationship with the tenant and ease of management are my main motivators and my initial feelings are that a full time carer is less likely to throw wild parties, cause major damage, and stay for a longer period.
Still unsure but am tending towards being open to the carer as a potential tenant.

thelawnet

socrates wrote: »

I do not think that is where the OP is coming from - its more to do with the person being a benefits claimant - what their post does show is their naivety - the exact reason they should probably avoid this type of tenant - they have already had one expensive lesson

This would be indirect discrimination (disabled people are more likely to be not working and in receipt of benefits). Just as illegal and wrong.

mrstinchcombe

You are playing the landlord game now, its not all blonde haired professional tennants with blue eyes and perfect bodies.

Perhaps you should look beyond your own discrimination and take a good long look at yourself, maybe you aren't perfect either.

TJ27

I don't know if this helps, but my wife is disabled, is not employed and is in receipt of some benefits. I work as a housing surveyor, have a reasonable salary and am not in receipt of any benefits. (We get child benefit and some tax credits between us though.)

Her income is more secure than mine is. It is also higher. So faced with the choice of renting to me or to her, who would you chose?

socrates

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

You are playing the landlord game now, its not all blonde haired professional tennants with blue eyes and perfect bodies.

Perhaps you should look beyond your own discrimination and take a good long look at yourself, maybe you aren't perfect either.

I think a few people got the wrong end of the stick here.

What the OP actually meant if you scroll up was:

Is it a good idea to take someone who is claiming benefits as a tenant.

The reason the OP was unsure was because they were being advised not to.

Nothing to do with the disability - its the fact that HB which is now called LHA is paid directly to the tenant (in most cases)

Most LL are unhappy with this new system - so it is a legitimate question based on the type of tenancy not their disability.

Personally I judge as I see - my main point against taking this tenant was - why should they pay an agent to find this type of tenant when they can approach their Local Authority and be recommended this type of tenant without the need for a LA and their obvious costs.

socrates

thelawnet wrote: »

This would be indirect discrimination (disabled people are more likely to be not working and in receipt of benefits). Just as illegal and wrong.

Not true - there are many many ads for rental properties that clearly state - DSS not accepted.

If it was illegal there would be thousands of court cases ongoing as we speak.

An ad that said no disabled tenants accepted would surely be illegal.

If the OP had asked if it was a good idea to take HB/LHA tenants on - there would be a mix of responses. So once again the disability is NOT the issue here.

This is a money saving website - my advice was based on saving money - ie do not pay a LA for the type of tenant you can find for free elsewhere (and I told them where to find them)

mrstinchcombe

socrates wrote: »

If the OP had asked if it was a good idea to take HB/LHA tenants on - there would be a mix of responses. So once again the disability is NOT the issue here.

Disability IS the issue here, if it weren't then why would the topic be called "Pros and cons of renting to a full time Carer and her disabled child"?

socrates

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Disability IS the issue here, if it weren't then why would the topic be called "Pros and cons of renting to a full time Carer and her disabled child"?

If you scroll up you will see that this was not their line of questioning. (#5)

The whole thread shows the naivety of the OP as a LL full stop - which is one of the reasons as stated earlier why they should not get involved in letting to benefit claimants as they do not understand the pros and cons.

Their title was unfortunate and has caused understandable disgust.

Perhaps the title should be amended to pros and cons of renting to benefit claimants - now that is a whole subject in itself...

lukekelly_2

thelawnet wrote: »

This would be indirect discrimination (disabled people are more likely to be not working and in receipt of benefits). Just as illegal and wrong.

It would certainly not be illegal and its morality at most is a matter for debate. Equality here is to consider applications from possible tenants solely on the analysis of possible financial outcomes and allow no consideration of other factors. If a property isn't rented to the tenant offering the highest (risk-adjusted) return to the landlord then there is discrimination. If not then there is none.