Renting to DSS tenants

Jowo_2

dlk wrote: »

From what's been said it seems better in many ways than professionals if after two months of arrears (not that I want that)you can have rent paid direct. Anyway having been used to renting individual rooms to student/young profs it at least reduces the amount of tenants I have from 3 to 1 so if nothing else reduces the chance of a bad tenant by a two thirds.

How are you reducing the risk of bad tenants by two thirds if you switch from working tenants to LHA who are more likely to have behavioural issues, run up arrears and be harder to evict than a working tenant?

How have you calculated this?

Most landlords will not consider LHA tenants because of the perception that they offer very much higher risk than a working tenant and warn off novice landlords from accepting them.

clutton_2

WWH> says ""LHA payments do go direct to tenant, but this hasn't proved to be a major issue for the majority of LLs. ""

this give altogether the wrong picture... the number of landlords now willing to ACCPET benefit tenants has slumped - just have a look on rightmove rentals and see if you can find any that say "DSS welcome" - and of those that do accept them the National Landlords association did a survey last summer of its members - and millions of pounds were owed in arrears by DSS tenants

If professional landlords are losing such huge sums how do you expect newbie landlords to cope any better ?

silvercar

My story, I have one BTL rented to a tenant on benefit.

The negatives:

Tenant did fall behind with their rent and I had to apply to be paid directly. This was actioned quickly but I now have 2 months arrears with little hope of tenant clearing, though I have 6 weeks deposit.

Rent arrives 4 weekly in arrears rather than monthly in advance.

The pluses:

Tenant keeps the property clean and tidy, also notifies maintenance issues quickly.

Tenant also redecorates (nicely).

Rent now arrives promptly from local authority; less worry of whether the rent will come in.

Tenant wants a long term let, so less risk of voids.

---

You need to consider each tenant on their merits, take references, credit check and deposit and guarantor if necessary. Don't let to benefits if the rent is much higher than the benefit entitlement; there is now legal way a tenant can afford a big rent top-up and survive on benefits.

delain

dlk wrote: »

A tad harsh to say people who rent are a blight on a neighbourhood!

I quite agree! I claimed LHA on my home as a single mum for almost three years, and still get a top up. I've never had even one complaint and get on very well with all my neighbours, who are, for the most part, owner-occupiers

Bob_the_Saver

If a tenant was found to have claimed falsely ie. got caught working on the side or whatever, wouldn't the local authority rapidly claim back the money from YOU and then you have to try and claim large amounts back from the tenant? or has this changed.

jockosjungle

I rent and have done for a few years but not DSS. I suppose it depends on the landlord but most places say no DSS, the ones that say they are welcome I will not consider as they are usually run down, in bad areas and surrounded by other DSS people.

Might seem snobbish but as a general rule, people who claim DSS are generally more likely to have antisocial problems. People generally rent to DSS people when they cannot get proper tenants.

Then again I'm sure some DSS people are decent and maybe a blanket ban isn't a great idea, if the person seems OK and settled then why not?

R

Widelats

I was a DSS tenant, had a landlord only interested in money, and tried to keep my bond when i moved saying the furniture was damaged (it was normal wear and tear)

As far as i am concerned a DSS/Private rental works both ways, if one fails the other too will not be happy.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

Read the HB/LHA forum on the Landlordzone website to understand some of the common issues and the advice that experienced landlords give to novice landlords to better manage the higher risk that LHA tenants present, such as thorough tenant screening and a request that the tenant provides a guarantor.

One major problem is that it is harder to evict LHA tenants than working ones because they are more likely to contact the council housing to say they are about to be made homeless. Local councils will then routinely tell the tenants to ignore the notice served by the landlord, forcing the landlord to take them to court. This is known as gatekeeping whereby the local councils, overwhelmed with people trying to secure social housing, will try to cut down on the demand on their services by telling the tenant they will be considered to have made themselves homeless if they leave ahead of the landlord winning a court case for possession against them.

Secondly, arrears racked up by those on benefits are rarely recoverable. Even if a landlord gets a court judgement in their favour, it's pretty impossible to enforce on someone who has no employment income.

That's just telling one half of a story. SOME authorities DO insist on the tenant being evicted before temporary accommodation will be provided. However, ALL authorities are charged with taking action to prevent such an eviction and will try and work WITH the LL to resolve the issues presented. This CAN include assistance with extra housing related benefits (DHP), assistance with the arrears, assistance with tenancy management/enforcement etc etc etc. Any tenant approaching with rent arrears would be advised of the likely failure of a homeless application (and possible exclusion from the waiting list) if rent arrears are the reason for eviction. MANY private LLs value that support very highly.

As for the reluctance of LLs to take LHA claimants, I think the physical evidence would indicate this not to be a major issue as the number of homeless applications from those who have had an AST ended has not markedly increased since prior to LHA being introduced.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

If a tenant was found to have claimed falsely ie. got caught working on the side or whatever, wouldn't the local authority rapidly claim back the money from YOU and then you have to try and claim large amounts back from the tenant? or has this changed.

The default is that LHA is paid direct to the tenant. So, any overpayment would also be collected from the tenant. Only when LHA is paid direct to LL can the overpayment be recovered from the LL.

ILW

jockosjungle wrote: »

I rent and have done for a few years but not DSS. I suppose it depends on the landlord but most places say no DSS, the ones that say they are welcome I will not consider as they are usually run down, in bad areas and surrounded by other DSS people.

Might seem snobbish but as a general rule, people who claim DSS are generally more likely to have antisocial problems. People generally rent to DSS people when they cannot get proper tenants.

Then again I'm sure some DSS people are decent and maybe a blanket ban isn't a great idea, if the person seems OK and settled then why not?

R

I recently looked on the Lewisham website.
For a single person to get housed, there were a number of special conditions that need to be met, such as being alcohol or drug dependent. Basically no chance for a low paid worker or someone who had been made redundant. you can see where the problems start if you are trying to rent out a studion or 1 bed flat.