Renting to DSS tenants

Angela84

I have been on DSS, and have always found it very hard to find property to rent as so many people wholeheartedly refuse to rent to DSS people. Having never met me, and knowing nothing about me just seems very narrow minded.
I thought it was rather odd as the council are guaranteed to pay landlords, you're not exactly going to get a call from them saying 'Um, could I pay late' are you!
I think you cannot sweep everyone under the same blanket, I think meeting with someone, knowing their background, and gaining a mutual respect that they will look after your property, and you will be on hand should they need you, is a much better situation than assuming someone with a job won't trash your house.

A couple of years ago I went to Northern Ireland for a few months, and when I went to rent a house every single landlord accepts housing benefits. When I explained about how difficult it was in England, they were surprised, echoing my opinion, that the council aren't exactly going to run out of money!

(Oh, and even if someone does have a job and references when they move in, they could lose their job, have to go on DSS, and you would have no way of knowing anyway!)

Jowo_2

I don't think the reluctance of landlords to accept LHA tenants is about making prejudiced value judgements about people on benefits but the fact that they are significantly risky as tenants, aggravated by a benefits system that acts quite differently to deal with people's rent when they are on benefits rather than in employment.

I also think it does no favours that LHA claimants are quick to blame alleged discrimination on landlords rather than the reputation of their claimants for getting into arrears, being harder to evict and more likely to belong to sections of the community that are vulnerable in some way that are more suited to social housing and the support/management that is offered there, rather than a small time landlord.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

I don't think the reluctance of landlords to accept LHA tenants is about making prejudiced value judgements about people on benefits but the fact that they are significantly risky as tenants, aggravated by a benefits system that acts quite differently to deal with people's rent when they are on benefits rather than in employment.

I also think it does no favours that LHA claimants are quick to blame alleged discrimination on landlords rather than the reputation of their claimants for getting into arrears, being harder to evict and more likely to belong to sections of the community that are vulnerable in some way that are more suited to social housing and the support/management that is offered there, rather than a small time landlord.

You start your post stating LLs aren't making "prejudiced value judgements about people on benefits", then fill the rest of that very same post with "prejudiced value judgements about people on benefits".

Oh, and a tenants rights regarding eviction are the same, regardless of the source of their rent.

ajones28

You could always make it part of the Contract that they have the rent paid direct to yourself. This is possible in this area and I presume its the same everywhere. I have been a LHA applicant myself and am actually looking for somewhere right now due to being in a Local Authority flat with absolute nightmare neighbours. I have been assaulted and also had 12 false allegations made about me (all found to be untrue) by 2 lots of neighbours who moved in at the same time 9 months ago. I have tried the Police, the Environmental Health and also my landlord (Local Authority) and nobody will help, they just keep sending warning letters out but nothing else is ever done. :mad:(Thats a whole new story altogether though, so won't go into it!) I have now given up and instead am trying to find somewhere else to rent, but because I lost my job a couple of months ago and am struggling to find something else I am treated like a leper. I don't think it is fair to stereotype everyone on benefits. I do understand some LHA claimants can be a complete nightmare, but at the same time I bet there are tenants who work who are just as bad, if not worse. You can't presume that all LHA claimants are lower class idiots who don't know how to respect their own or other peoples property. The recession has seen to that and there are many middle class people on benefits now. I bet most people wouldn't hesitate to rent out to someone who turned up in a big car and spoke well would they - whether on benefits or not!
I have generally always worked yet I am being treated the same as somebody who treats being on benefits as an easy ride - they must be absolutely mad!! As said in previous posts the best thing to do is meet the people then make a decision on them. Ask for a reference from their landlord if you are still concerned. But please don't think that all benefit claimants are the same. The main disadvantage is that you will be paid a month in arrears with LHA claimants and your first payment might be a little bit late depending on how quick your Local Authority deal with HB claims. Obviously every area is different though. Bear in mind as well, the house is going to be occupied all day if someone is not working so added security. The best advice I can give is if concerned ask for rent to be paid direct to you as part of the contract with your tenants and if concerned just keep a close eye on them. Advise them you will be doing checks on the property once every couple of months, after all it is your property and I don't think asking to see the property once every 8 - 9 weeks is over-intrusive. Good Luck in finding tenants anyway, hope all goes well.:wave:

Wee_Willy_Harris

LHA payments are made direct to tenant UNLESS there is a justification for having them paid direct to LL. The justification would be rent arrears, history of poor tenancy management or a vulnerability leading to an inability to manage personal finances. A contract stipulation would NOT be sufficient on its own.

Jowo_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Oh, and a tenants rights regarding eviction are the same, regardless of the source of their rent.

Yes, the legal process for serving notice and gaining possession back is identical whether the tenant pays through earned income or benefits.

But where it diverges is that an employed tenant will usually encounter little difficulty in finding onward accommodation, knowing that they would get short thrift if they presented themselves as potentially homeless to the council.

In contrast, a tenant on benefits is more likely to seek council support when they have no accommodation organised in the next 28 days and therefore be instructed by the council to ignore the notice that's been served.

Working tenants rarely resort to applying as homeless to the local council when served notice, knowing the most they'll get is a list of local B&Bs. Tenants on benefits are much more likely to apply as homeless, knowing that councils have a statutory obligation to house them.

clutton_2

WWH says ""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. ""

There are many many landlords who have not evicted their LHA arrears-tenant - simply because they now get their rent direct from the council and they would be mad to end such a tenancy - as someone has said - the council wont run out of money...... maybe.......

There are millions of pounds worth of arrears in this country .... and my guess would be that a higher percentage of those are from benefit tenants....

ajones28

If this is the case then I apologise. The last time I was claiming HB I was in a Private rented property was approx. 4years ago and I chose to have it paid direct to my landlord. I did this for the whole tenancy which was upto about two and a half years ago. If the rules have changed since then or if its a matter of different area - different rules I don't know. the best thing for the OP to do is to contact their Local Authority and ask them about it. As for the legalities around stipulating in the Contract that the rent is paid direct, I presume if the LA do it then it could be added and surely if that is not done then surely it is a breach of Contract and therefore a valid reason to threaten eviction.

ajones28

wee_willy_harris wrote: »

lha payments are made direct to tenant unless there is a justification for having them paid direct to ll. The justification would be rent arrears, history of poor tenancy management or a vulnerability leading to an inability to manage personal finances. A contract stipulation would not be sufficient on its own.

sorry my last post was referring to the above

Soubrette

dlk wrote: »

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

Although undoubtedly some of them will be, I personally wouldn't go as far as to say often but the person you quoted didn't say that all people who rent cast a blight on the neighbourhood. The poster said

IMHO BTL properties can often blight many reasonable streets.

bolding my own for emphasis.

Afterall some owner occupiers are pretty grim too, although I'll bet the percentages are higher for rented.

Sou