Advice please DSS tenent has never paid rent

Jowo_2

Mum of 3 - you've made good points but the policy of the government is in fact to make HB recipients feel as if the benefits are their money and to make them take responsibility for spending it - it is their money, according to this view, and as active consumers they have to make the choices and the decisions instead of being hand-held and passive about things.

Funnily enough, social housing landlords, including the local council, always take the benefit directly from HB/LHA claimants but don't permit this luxury to private landlords so they are effectively forcing landlords to take risks that they are unwilling to expose themselves to.

Although it's the owners property, it is the tenants home. Relatives and friends can be guarantors for tenants (in fact, many landlords will not accept HB/LHA tenants without a guarantor) but the tenancy has to be between the landlord and the tenants, not landlord and the guarantor who is merely underwriting the payment of rent and not actually residing in the property.

The purpose of switching from HB to LHA by the government was expressly to make claimants take responsibility for paying the rent, to make them accept responsibility for budgeting. The background to it is explained here

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/claims-processing/local-housing-allowance/background/

Choice - tenants are able to take on greater responsibility and choose how to spend their income in a similar way to tenants who are not in receipt of benefits. Like other tenants they are able to choose whether to rent a larger property, or spend less on housing and increase their available income.

Personal responsibility - Empowering people to budget for and to pay their rent themselves, rather than having it paid for them, helps develop the skills unemployed tenants will need as they move back into work.

Improved administration and reduced barriers to work - For working age tenants, LHA provides a greater certainty about what help is available in and out of work. A simpler system also helps speed up administration of housing payments, giving tenants more confidence when starting a job that any in-work benefit will be paid quickly. A more transparent system may also improve the ability of individuals to move between areas and to take advantage of employment opportunities.

lemonjelly

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

Yeah I do understand where you're coming from Lemonjelly and I know from past experience that not every LL has butter melting in their mouths.

I also agree that the LLs should chase up arrears, but as our DC/LHA is being very obstructive about information they can give out it's not very easy to see if S is telling the truth about not receiving HB or whether she is spending it on other stuff.

I guess I see HB as not belonging to the tenant, I see it as the LHA paying the LL as it's public money not the tenant's personal money. Unlike when I rented years ago & had to take it out of my wages.

Also I just see that there is more scope for failing to pay the rent if the tenant get it handed to them. this is turn gets the tenant thrown out. The tenant then has to fill in more forms for their next rental and the LHA has to process these forms which is again at more expense to the taxpayer.

M_o_3

I think you've hit the nail on the head to an extent.

I think where we differ relates to the bit I've highlighted. It is the tenants benefit claim, therefore it is their housing benefit/LHA. From another perspective, it should teach them about the responsibility to pay their rent (after all, no-one does it for the employed, & the unemployed have plenty of time on their hands don't they?). Also, if they expect to recieve 4 weeks rent every 4 weeks, & all of a sudden it isn't in their bank, it might make them a bit more proactive in sorting it out, rather than saying to LL's that they haven't been paid.

Still think you're getting the runaround from the council though. What they are saying is not in line with the law. It is written into hb/LHA regs that there is specific information they can/must share with you. In addition, it is written in that if rent is over 8 weeks/2 months in arrears, it has to be paid to the landlord direct.

I'd also suggest advising the person you speak with that the DPA doesn't apply in this case, & refer them to section 35 of the act. This part states that the DPA does not apply in relation to, or for the prevention of legal proceedings. In this case, your parents are seeking to establish the need for (or to not take) legal action to evict a tenant. Therefore the DPA act MUST be disregarded.

I'd suggest if you ring again, & they tell you can't disclose due to DPA, ask what part of the DPA they are referring too as a justification. Too many organisations hide behind the DPA.

silvercar

The council gave me this data protection wall but said I could write to the council to state that rent was in arrears and if they had such a tenant at such an address they would take matters forward - which they did.

lemonjelly

silvercar wrote: »

The council gave me this data protection wall but said I could write to the council to state that rent was in arrears and if they had such a tenant at such an address they would take matters forward - which they did.

silvercar, refer to my post regarding section 35 of the DPA above - check it out for yourself.

Too many places hide behind the DPA - it is up to us (society) to challenge them when they interpret or use the law wronlgy. After all, various organisations used the DPA to withold info about a certain Ian Huntley, & look at what happened to Holly/Jessica.

There are times when it is important & beneficial that information is shared.

clutton_2

""Empowering people to budget for and to pay their rent themselves, rather than having it paid for them, helps develop the skills unemployed tenants will need as they move back into work.""

what utter rollocks - single parent mums are already extremely good at budgeting - they show that can run a home on the poverty level of income support and child benefit - and usually make a good job of it

this decision to make HB into LHA has been the most disastrous policy in housing since we saw Cathy Come Home and future governments will realise that this money-saving exercise (which is what its Actually been about) - has cost them a fortune nation wide as LHAs in many parts of the country have been set at higher levels than HB was.

its the hypocrisy of it that maddens me - Councils get their rents direct - why are private landlords discriminated against ?

having said all that, i will still take benefit tenants - but they will now have to jump thru so many more hoops before i agree to sign a tenancy

Jowo_2

clutton wrote: »

what utter rollocks - single parent mums are already extremely good at budgeting - they show that can run a home on the poverty level of income support and child benefit - and usually make a good job of it

this decision to make HB into LHA has been the most disastrous policy in housing since we saw Cathy Come Home and future governments will realise that this money-saving exercise (which is what its Actually been about) - has cost them a fortune nation wide as LHAs in many parts of the country have been set at higher levels than HB was.

My understanding is that many countries pay their equivalent of Housing Benefit to the tenants - it may be innovative in the UK not to pay landlords directly - but it is not uncommon elsewhere.

I can see the point of paying tenants directly to enforce a sense that they are responsible for their income rather than just lazily assuming their tenancy is between the local authority and the landlord. However, as there are virtually no sanctions if they deliberately squander their benefits, there's little incentive for the minority who can but won't pay the rent.

Also, there are mixed views on whether the introduction of LHA has decreased the number of private lets available to claimants. On the one hand, there are definately some landlords who felt the only benefit to them of accepting a HB tenant was payment of the rent directly to them so they are appalled that the policy has changed. On the other, in some areas, the LHA level is close to market rent and this may tempt other landlords into accepting them, particularly as the lettings market currently favours tenants.

Anyway, it's up to landlords to accept and mitigate the greater risks of accepting a HB/LHA claimant through the usual means - thorough tenant screening, including previous landlord references and credit check, greater sum of deposit and rent in advance, provision of a guarantor, completion of a form authorising the landlord to be able to discuss the LHA with the Local Authority. That way, there is little chance of being exposed to irrecoverable rent arrears and damage.

clutton_2

one thing i would like to see is an addition to LL&T Acts - that is if a tenant has been in receipt of LHA and has not paid the rent -then a landlord can go to court within 2 weeks and there will be no right of appeal

socrates

I have a number of LHA claimants in my properties and apart from the first one I switched over I have had no problems. I got there in the end with that one!

I make a point of going along with them to the HB Office

I also make sure I try to see the same couple of benefit officers each time

I make sure they complete the section and sign where I can discuss their claim directly with the HB Office

I make sure they set up a separate bank account for LHA - usually the Halifax Easy Cash Card (it is a debit card account despite the name) - which is very easy to obtain online

Guarantors - quite difficult to find IMO

I also make a point of asking the Officer if there is:

'any reason why this tenant should not have their LHA paid to them directly'

They have to answer this whatever flannel they try and give you - this will tell me if they have been in arrears anywhere else or have social or other issues - which would preclude them from being paid directly.

I also take advantage of any incentive schemes the Local Authority is giving to take benefit claimants and reduce the amount of Temporary Accom they are paying for.

I have my own views on tenants being paid directly - however I realised its pointless as nothing will change.:D

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

a situation in which a landlord has been granted direct payment of LHA and it is then proved that the tenant has been fraudulently claiming LHA (and i would ask any reasonable person to come up with some sensible ides as to how it is possible that a LL knows/does not know if a tenant is fraudulently claiming) will result in the payments being clawed back by the council from the LandLord .... the council does not have to provide ANY evidence that the LL knew of this fraud ... as the legislation is worded such that a council can choose to clawback from the person who received the benefit - OR someone else if they reason to think that person is culpable.

It is wrong that decent LLs should suffer under this rule but unfortunately there *are *LLs who collude with the T in the fraudulent claim, so I'm happy to see those particular LLs lose their ill-gotten rent money. (T also to be penalised)

clutton wrote: »

60% of National Landlords Association landlords have said they will not take benefit tenants any more

Can you remember where that figurecomes from Clutton? The last report I read (April this year) was a member's survey , with a pretty low response rate -panel 1600 but around 475-500 repsonses? Just over half of them said that the introduction of LHA made them less likely to take on new claimants if they already had exoereince with benefit-claiming Ts, or less likely to start renting to those on benefits where the LLs weren't already doing so. My recollection of the 60% figure was those who thought LHA could be improved.?

tbs624

Jowo wrote: »

...Anyway, it's up to landlords to accept and mitigate the greater risks of accepting a HB/LHA claimant through the usual means - thorough tenant screening, including previous landlord references and credit check, greater sum of deposit and rent in advance, provision of a guarantor, completion of a form authorising the landlord to be able to discuss the LHA with the Local Authority. That way, there is little chance of being exposed to irrecoverable rent arrears and damage.

Totally agree and that is one of the points I was making in my earlier posts.