Housing benefit, legal implications

Chrysalis

pbradley936 wrote:

It would appear that like the rest us us you do not know. Rather than insult us all and imply that we are making it up or or worse could you perhaps do your own research if you would like to add something constructive? The purpose of the thread is to find out the legal implications.

Let me ask you this, one of your tenants who has always been reliable has a change of circumstances and he is on housing benefit, you know about this do you evict him or keep him as a tenant? If you keep him do you tell your insurance company?

The insurance company may add that £40 showed as an exmaple to the premiums but obviously if you evict him you risk void periods as well as him witholding rent during the end of his tenancy which is a lot more costly then £40. I would expect almost every landlord would keep him on as a tenant.

lil'H

My dad is a landlord and won't take people on HB, because statistically he was advised they would be less liekly to pay. He'd happily take HB tennants if they agreed rent could be paid directly form council to him, howeber HB is paid 4 weekly not per calender month which gives him huge problems so makes it impossible. Nothing to do with insurance though.

Lil'H

PS I shoudl mention my Dad has no stereotyped view of HB just has to go by legal advice, also i'm on HB so he knows the reality of why and who claim!!!

peter999

lil'H wrote:

My dad is a landlord and won't take people on HB, because statistically he was advised they would be less liekly to pay. He'd happily take HB tennants if they agreed rent could be paid directly form council to him, howeber HB is paid 4 weekly not per calender month which gives him huge problems so makes it impossible. Nothing to do with insurance though.

Lil'H

PS I shoudl mention my Dad has no stereotyped view of HB just has to go by legal advice, also i'm on HB so he knows the reality of why and who claim!!!

Landlords are worried about the MONEY and will follow prejudiced advice/views.

In the end it comes down to the individual person/tenant, not stereotype
views of people on benefits.
.

Chrysalis

lil'H wrote:

My dad is a landlord and won't take people on HB, because statistically he was advised they would be less liekly to pay. He'd happily take HB tennants if they agreed rent could be paid directly form council to him, howeber HB is paid 4 weekly not per calender month which gives him huge problems so makes it impossible. Nothing to do with insurance though.

Lil'H

PS I shoudl mention my Dad has no stereotyped view of HB just has to go by legal advice, also i'm on HB so he knows the reality of why and who claim!!!

yeah the people giving legal advice were probably steroetyped as well.

You do highlight the problem tho in that the HB system itself is a big problem, the 4 weekly thing as well as it pays in arrears and not in advance.

However I dont see a problem if it gets paid to the tenant instead of the landlord for 2 reasons.

If the tenant is responsible they will pay iheir rent on time anyway this is regardless if they are on benefits or on salary or on both.

HB will very rarely pay out the total amount of rent if the rent is due monthly so in the above case rent would still have to be paid from the tenant from other incomes.

peter999

Chrysalis wrote:

Let me ask you this, one of your tenants who has always been reliable has a change of circumstances and he is on housing benefit, you know about this do you evict him or keep him as a tenant? If you keep him do you tell your insurance company?

The insurance company may add that £40 showed as an exmaple to the premiums but obviously if you evict him you risk void periods as well as him witholding rent during the end of his tenancy which is a lot more costly then £40. I would expect almost every landlord would keep him on as a tenant.

If it was a condition of your policy, you need to tell them, assuming
that your tenant's business is your business & your insurance companies business.
.

Chrysalis

Since the law states you dont have to tell your landlord if you on HB or not and simply just have to pay the rent due, it could mean any insurance company that has terms for people on HB could be using illegal terms in their contracts and if they refused a reward based on these terms a court could rule them to pay.

Thats my take on it anyway.

Its certianly a lot more risky to take on a completely new tenant wether they have a salary or not then to stick with one that you have known for month/years.

peter999

Chrysalis wrote:

yeah the people giving legal advice were probably steroetyped as well.

Depends what you mean by "Legal Advice", who gave it & whether it's accurate ??

Many people don't know know what their talking about
-so called experts, people with a little/general knowledge/experience.

If you ask a leading question, you're likely to get a safe answer from an "expert".

I have dealt with banks on technical issues needing specific advice.
Most of the employees offer their opinion/advice but didn't know what they were talking about, but unfortunately have to keep face & pretend they know what their talking about.
.

peter999

Chrysalis wrote:

Since the law states you dont have to tell your landlord if you on HB or not and simply just have to pay the rent due, it could mean any insurance company that has terms for people on HB could be using illegal terms in their contracts and if they refused a reward based on these terms a court could rule them to pay.

Look, whether a tenant is on Housing Benefit is NOT going to invalidate
the insurance policy, if the insurers have been told the property is rented.
.

Mrs_pbradley936

This whole thread seems to have been turned into a discussion on whether or not people on HB are upstanding citizens. I expect the answer to that is that they are like the rest of the population –most are quite nice people and a few are not. As I say the original question arose out of another thread and rather than hijack that thread and digress from the point raised (someone was having their rent increased and wondered if it was fair) I started this one. So let me rephrase the entire thing WOULD AN INSURANCE COMPANY PAY A CLAIM IF IT TURNED OUT THAT THE STATUS OF THE TENANT WAS OTHER THAN AS DECLARED ON THE POLICY. I am not really interested in whether you think they ought to, should do, might do, you would if you were them etc etc. Let us imagine scenario – a tap has been left on in an upstairs bathroom, the basin has overflowed and so much water is present that it pours through the floor and into the room below. The floor to the bathroom/ceiling to room below has to be dried out, repaired, decorated and the electrical wiring needs to be checked because the fuses tripped due to all the water. The owner of the house puts in an insurance claim. Take it from there folks.

Fran

pbradley936 wrote:

WOULD AN INSURANCE COMPANY PAY A CLAIM IF IT TURNED OUT THAT THE STATUS OF THE TENANT WAS OTHER THAN AS DECLARED ON THE POLICY.

Insurance companies are notable for looking at ways of not paying. If it is stated on the insurance policy one thing and another turns out to be the case they could use it of course. I think this has already been said.