Can I buy a house to rent to my lil sis on housing benefit?

terryw

Anthillmob wrote: »

buying a property to specifically rent to a relative is a big no-no

Anthill, you are mistaken. Regardless of the morality of the whole thing, providing that the property is let on a commercial basis then it is perfectly within the rules for claiming housing benefit.

scarletjim

Anthillmob wrote: »

buying a property to specifically rent to a relative is a big no-no

I thought this might be the case, and I have absolutely no intention of doing anything 'dodgy' but the question I've asked several times in this thread is WHY the coucil take such a stance in situations like this. How is what I am proposing doing any harm to anyone? She will get a house from someone and the council will pay the £900pcm rent, so why should they complain if it's me? And if I am prepared to give up £100pcm because the property is actually worth £1000pcm not £900pcm, then my sis is getting a better house, so the council is getting a happier customer, and the only one losing out is me, so why would they take this ridiculous stance?

Anthillmob I know you have posted previously on such threads so I welcome your views, but I don't appreciate comments like saying the tenant will normally 'slip up' at interview. Just to reiterate I don't want to do anything dodgy either legally or ethically, I just want to find out if there is a fair and legitimate way to do this, if not then the regulations are insane as this is clearly beneficial for everyone involved!

scarletjim

terryw wrote: »

Anthill, you are mistaken. Regardless of the morality of the whole thing, providing that the property is let on a commercial basis then it is perfectly within the rules for claiming housing benefit.

But even in terms of the morality issue, what on earth are we doing that anyone could consider wrong? How is it any different to my sis renting from someone else? I'm very confused now!

terryw

Anthillmob wrote: »

<snip>

remember also we can carry out land registry searches and the like. we are very thorough.

i understand the predicament they are in with only having a 2 bed house but please consider the seriousness this could lead to.

So what that you can check the Land Registry? This is open and can be checked by ANYONE at all. It will show that the OP is the owner. So what! What does this prove or illustrate. The OP is the owner.

What "seriousness" could this lead to? None whatsoever.

I am not agreeing with the moral issue which has some posters a bit miffed. But the cunning plan is perfectly legitimate and will enable the OP to let the property to her relative and claim the rent via HB from those who contribute to the system.

Blame the government for this nonsensical state of affairs. Not the OP for taking advantage of the system which enables her to profit from providing this poor down-trodden family with a dwelling suitable for their needs.

Anthillmob

terryw wrote: »

Anthill, you are mistaken. Regardless of the morality of the whole thing, providing that the property is let on a commercial basis then it is perfectly within the rules for claiming housing benefit.

not in our neck of the woods. however all LAs work differently, which i believe we shouldn't.

but...having myself not specifically come accross this and only going on colleagues then i accept you could be right in some instances.

makes sense to me probably not to you. im in a muddle.

Anthillmob

terryw wrote: »

So what that you can check the Land Registry? This is open and can be checked by ANYONE at all. It will show that the OP is the owner. So what! What does this prove or illustrate. The OP is the owner.

What "seriousness" could this lead to? None whatsoever.

I am not agreeing with the moral issue which has some posters a bit miffed. But the cunning plan is perfectly legitimate and will enable the OP to let the property to her relative and claim the rent via HB from those who contribute to the system.

Blame the government for this nonsensical state of affairs. Not the OP for taking advantage of the system which enables her to profit from providing this poor down-trodden family with a dwelling suitable for their needs.

it can also show if the OP is joint owner with the claimant/sister. not for one minute suggesting this would be the case but this has to be pointed out incase anyone else reading thinks 'bingo'.

scarletjim

terryw wrote: »

Blame the government for this nonsensical state of affairs. Not the OP for taking advantage of the system which enables her to profit from providing this poor down-trodden family with a dwelling suitable for their needs.

Excuse me - I refer you back to the question I asked before your post - how am I taking advantage of anything or anyone? I could get more rent from renting privately. It is nonsensical if the government doesn't let us do this surely, otherwise please explain to me what I stand to gain and what the taxpayers stands to lose compared to my sis renting from someone else? :mad::mad::mad:

I really strongly recent implications from both Anthillmob and TerryW that I am trying to do anything dodgy, I'm really not!!!

So back to the question I've asked from the start but no one has answered - why on earth would my proposal not be allowed, who is it hurting?

Anthillmob

scarletjim wrote: »

I thought this might be the case, and I have absolutely no intention of doing anything 'dodgy' but the question I've asked several times in this thread is WHY the coucil take such a stance in situations like this. How is what I am proposing doing any harm to anyone? She will get a house from someone and the council will pay the £900pcm rent, so why should they complain if it's me? And if I am prepared to give up £100pcm because the property is actually worth £1000pcm not £900pcm, then my sis is getting a better house, so the council is getting a happier customer, and the only one losing out is me, so why would they take this ridiculous stance?

Anthillmob I know you have posted previously on such threads so I welcome your views, but I don't appreciate comments like saying the tenant will normally 'slip up' at interview. Just to reiterate I don't want to do anything dodgy either legally or ethically, I just want to find out if there is a fair and legitimate way to do this, if not then the regulations are insane as this is clearly beneficial for everyone involved!

to make myself perfectly clear, wheat i say is the bare bones of my understanding/training of it all. i am not suggesting for one minute you would be 'naughty' but other people with the same idea with no scruples whatsoever will read threads like these and think to themselves what a great idea.

Anthillmob

scarletjim wrote: »

Er, where have I said it's not contrived? It clearly is, therefore I am asking:

a). Why do they have this stipulation, who am I hurting by doing this?
b). Is there anyway way around it or anything I can do to keep the council happy, eg. what about if I rent to someone else for 6 months first etc?
c). Does anyone else have any other advice or suggested alternative courses of action?

alas, this does tell me you are asking if there is a workaround. apologies if you were not. maybe i misunderstood in which case could you explain?

Macro_3

The fact that he OP would be related to his tenant does not make the tenancy contrived. If there is a valid tenancy agreement in place and the OP would be willing (forced!) to evict his sister in the event of her defaulting on the rent, then the tenancy would be likely to be deemed legitimate. From what the OP has said, he intends the house to be an investment, sister or not, and his sister would just give him the peace of mind of a reliable known tenant. I wouldn't have much of a problem with their claim and I don't see what's immoral, really

If the OP had let the sister live in the house for a peppercorn rent/free and then put the rent up to match the LHA rate when she lost her job and became eligible for benefit, though (for example) - that would be contrived.