Why do some landlords say no to HB tenants?

[Deleted User]

!!!!!! wrote: »

Also some mortgage lenders may make it a condition of BTL as will some insurers.

+1 I have some mortgages with this clause.

Ankatden

clutton wrote: »

there is no point in being not upfront... both landlords and agents who are professional will find out in a shot that you are not working and if you have not told them your full circimstances they will wonder what else you have "omitted" to tell them..

as a LL i have many benefit tenants and treat each application on its own merits.... if you go armed with bank statements for 6 months (showing that you have paid the rent/mortgage consistently and also showing how you live,) this will go a long way towards showing your financial acuity...

a guarantor who is employed is also a good idea.

if you cannot do that then contact your local council and ask them for their accredited landlords list - many of whom may take benefit tenants and whose properties are in good order.

good luck

I agree as we have quite a few BUT sadly even when guaranteed by a bond scheme councils offer such different degrees of service and adhoc interpretation of the DWP rules that DH is moving away from HB tenants.

FATBALLZ

Because benefit tenants are infinitely more likely to be problem tenants who show no respect for the neighbours, trash the place and fail to pay the rent. I lived in a great flat a few years back, great views, very spacious, and was very happy for 9 months. Then the block next to ours started accepting benefit tenants (presumably as there wasn't demand from better quality tenants) and the place went rapidly downhill, people started getting burgled, motorbikes got nicked, the police turned up all the time. We moved out a couple of months later. The properties now sell for half the price they were when I moved in.

Jowo_2

Letting property is a business and certain groups of tenants, such as HB claimants and students, are seen as riskier.

Mainly the negativity for hb claimants is due to the system, not prejudice. For example, rent is typically paid monthly, in advance whereas LHA is paid 4 weekly in arrears.

When a tenant is in employment, they are seen to be less likely to get into arrears and more likely to be able to catch up with any arrears, even if it requires enforcement of a judgement in court, such as attachment of earnings.

When a tenant has no income, it is a waste of time, effort and expense to take legal action to recover arrears. Judgement is easy but enforcing it is virtually impossible - you can't get money out of someone who doesn't have it.

What hasn't been mentioned is the perception that HB claimants are harder to evict. A working tenant served notice should find onward accommodation with ease and know that if they submit a homeless application, they are likely to get short thrift - a list of local B&Bs.

A non-working tenant is more likely to seek advice from CAB, Shelter or the local council and told that if they leave ahead of court action, they will make themselves intentionally homeless and won't be eligible for any assistance from the local council under their statutory obligations. Therefore a working tenant is likely to move out but a claimant, who will always find it harder to find a landlord to accept them, is sometimes forced to stay put until the landlord gets a court order. This is a system issue again - the claimant is only following their right to stay in the property until the landlord has regained possession in the court and tend to only get help from the local council if they stay put - but now HB claimants have the reputation of not leaving at the end of their tenancies.

coldstreamalways

My lease prohibits letting to HB claimants. Sad as I dream of the day when I get a responsible tenant who wants to stay for years and look after the house, maybe on HB, maybe not. I don't care but that's what it says and I fear it's because of some "bad apples" spoiling it for he majority.

silvercar

coldstreamalways wrote: »

My lease prohibits letting to HB claimants. Sad as I dream of the day when I get a responsible tenant who wants to stay for years and look after the house, maybe on HB, maybe not. I don't care but that's what it says and I fear it's because of some "bad apples" spoiling it for he majority.

So what happens if you let to ta working tenant who then becomes unemployed and claims HB? You have no right to evict within the fixed term of an AST, yet your lease prohibits such letting.

coldstreamalways

TBH, I don't know!! I hate being a LL but can't sell. I will look it up and let you know!

neverdespairgirl

Kay.Samuels wrote: »

Aah so it is as I thought, they think being in receipt of housing benefits means I will be more likely to wreck the house or not pay the rent!

Also that you aren't worth suing on benefits, I think.

clutton_2

landlords can only get an attachment of benefits to pay arrears from current tenants.... as soon as they move out DWP refuse to continue an attachment of benefits

tell me why that is fair neverdespairgirl ?

neverdespairgirl

I don't think it's fair at all. I don't know much about it, though.