Why do some landlords say no to HB tenants?

theartfullodger

I've rented to HB recipients on a couple of occasions.

One, a nice lady & her son (? 10-ish).. were fine, HB paid regularly and no problems with the house.. until I went round for some reason (yes, I was invited..) and son proudly announced he'd "decorated his bedroom"! My heart sank, but when I saw it it wasn't too bad, even if it was a dark-ish shade of blue. I still see them occasional (son now grown up & working) and remain on good/nodding terms - as far as I can tell.

'tOther, tricky: Tenants signed up tenancy, then lost jobs (there were 3 of them) all were on HB at one time or another.. then the council decided (nowt to do with me..) that one of them had been fraudulently claiming HB: Council then writes to me asking for HB back & I, ignorant at the time, paid them... (Old rule when chasing debt - given a choice, go after the person with money & a job..that's what the council did). However there are legal remedies for such circumstances..

It has been suggested one problem with HB is of contrived tenancies at higher-than-they-ought-to-be rents arranged between LL&T where T returns backhander to LL as the HB comes through .. If true Landlords behaving this way should be shot...

Cheers!

Artful

tbs624

Sometimes it's the LL/LA who's the dodgy one, squirrelling away the benefit money see here

Running_Horse

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!

I have read the replies above your statement and this is not what was said.

N79

Just one to add to the problems mentioned above of:
lease/mortgage terms,
system problems of benefit being in arrears and rent in advance,
"problems" of eviction and
the lack of effective remedies for debt,

which is the fact that it is impossible to insure the risks presented by benefit Ts whereas it is very possible to ensure against working Ts defaulting.

mizzbiz

Afew reasons from the inside

- LHA is paid directly to the tenant and it is up to them to hand it to the landlord. The landlord can only receive payment directly (and temporarily) once the tenant reaches 8 weeks in arreas (usually about £2k). The landlord does not get the arrears back from the council as they have already 'paid' to the tenant, and only ever pay once, so the landlord is forced to swallow the arreas.

- If the tenant has a change in circumstances that they don't tell the council about, or they move without telling the landlord, and the landlord is receiving the LHA directly, the overpayment has technically been paid to landlord and this will be recovered from them - no arguments!! So you can potentially lose thousands letting to HB tenants and landlords have no comeback from the tenant, who usually has no money, or the council, who are relentles in recovering money they don't think shoudl have been paid.

The whole point of LHA under labour ws to make benefit claimants feel 'independant' and in control of their money. Instead it has resulted in hundreds of landlords refusing to let to biggest letting pool in the country due to heavy and irrecoverable losses.

SirDag

Hi Kay,

What will you do if you do not find a property to move to?

Kay.Samuels

If I do not find a property to move to I will stay in my current private let property with neighbours from hell harassing and intimidating me and my son (threatening to burn our home to the ground, throwing stones at glass, etc), DS will have no outdoor safe place to play which affects his mood and ridiculously high energy levels, and I will continue to be sleep deprived from a mixture of DS getting up at all hours and neighbours playing music and shouting.

On a bad day I think that I'd rather live in a hostel but I think DS would retreat into himself and regress developmentally if I did.

I'm stuck here basically until I find somewhere else to rent.

SOME landlords do take DSS tenants but most don't, and I'm sure even the one's that do would chose someone in paid employment than someone claiming carer's allowance and housing benefit. It's just a case of having to keep looking ...

mchale

mizzbiz wrote: »

Afew reasons from the inside

- LHA is paid directly to the tenant and it is up to them to hand it to the landlord. The landlord can only receive payment directly (and temporarily) once the tenant reaches 8 weeks in arreas (usually about £2k). The landlord does not get the arrears back from the council as they have already 'paid' to the tenant, and only ever pay once, so the landlord is forced to swallow the arreas.

- If the tenant has a change in circumstances that they don't tell the council about, or they move without telling the landlord, and the landlord is receiving the LHA directly, the overpayment has technically been paid to landlord and this will be recovered from them - no arguments!! So you can potentially lose thousands letting to HB tenants and landlords have no comeback from the tenant, who usually has no money, or the council, who are relentles in recovering money they don't think shoudl have been paid.

The whole point of LHA under labour ws to make benefit claimants feel 'independant' and in control of their money. Instead it has resulted in hundreds of landlords refusing to let to biggest letting pool in the country due to heavy and irrecoverable losses.

Bear in mind if a HB tenant does a runner with the rent money and the LL informs the council of this, the council will not pursue the tenant for the money that should have been paid as rent,

If a tenant does not pay his/her rent, next time they make a fresh claim it should be refused on the ground they did not honor their previous agreement with the LL, !!!!!! its money coming out of decent working people's pocket's subsiding these scumbags

mchale

MadnessOfHPC wrote: »

I think it's more to do with wanting the best quality of tenant possible. It's nothing personal but I would never take anyone who wasn't a working professional.

What a load of b******t, some of the best tenant's i've had have been in receipt of HB, I've had some right !!!!!! of working tenant's

neverdespairgirl

MadnessOfHPC wrote: »

I think it's more to do with wanting the best quality of tenant possible. It's nothing personal but I would never take anyone who wasn't a working professional.

What does "working professional" mean? Teachers, doctors and vicars only?