How the proposed changes may affect LHA tenants

Jowo_2

So why if the council have paid the landlord for the 1st month's rent, on behalf of the tenant, would they then pay the LHA again for that 1st month's rent? Why when they start to pay the LHA to the landlord directly can they not class it as the second month's rent? Why can't the council stop an overpayment of HB at the end of the tenancy if the tenant tells the local council they are moving, particularly as LHA is paid in arrears?

I'm just curious to know why the proposed change to paying the landlord directly is so flawed that many tenants can expect to take the landlord to court for an overpayment, that the council somehow cannot control the LHA payments to take into account the additional 1st months rent that they paid to the landlord on the tenant's behalf.

EastMidsGal

poppysarah wrote: »

Lower lha means easier to find work and afford to live.

Create lower rents by reducing lha. Landlords can either accept less money or sell up.

That's incredibly simplistic. In places like the south east where demand vastly outstrips supply why should a landlord drop the rent?

Your argument would only work where there are more tenants than property available to rent, where is that the case? I have seen property on the market for weeks and weeks that state clearly NO DSS, yet I don't see them dropping their rent or their requirements, they'd rather their properties stay empty

EastMidsGal

Jowo wrote: »

So why if the council have paid the landlord for the 1st month's rent, on behalf of the tenant, would they then pay the LHA again for that 1st month's rent? Why when they start to pay the LHA to the landlord directly can they not class it as the second month's rent? Why can't the council stop an overpayment of HB at the end of the tenancy if the tenant tells the local council they are moving, particularly as LHA is paid in arrears?

I'm just curious to know why the proposed change to paying the landlord directly is so flawed that many tenants can expect to take the landlord to court for an overpayment, that the council somehow cannot control the LHA payments to take into account the additional 1st months rent that they paid to the landlord on the tenant's behalf.

That's a bloody good argument Jowo and one I will take to the housing officer because I think their system is incredibly flawed, even more so now that LHA is going to be paid direct to landlords who drop their rent in line with the new caps

http://news.rla.org.uk/index.php/archives/992

I know that the housing officer said that housing benefit is a completely different department and they don't work hand in hand with hers, that she has no influence, but surely, if they want to implement that scheme they should work together.

I have googled and also searched my councils website and the way the scheme works isn't online but I have three A4 printouts that the housing officer gave to me, I just don't have the time to type them all out here, but basically they describe what I have said, how the scheme works with my council:

The council don't pay cash for the deposit but they write a letter guaranteeing the deposit (if I was a LL I wouldn't think the letter was worth the paper it was printed but nevermind! I'm not a landlord!) I know it isn't unique to my council either because when I had no luck finding alternative accommodation in London and I was looking outside of the M25 letting agents I spoke to also referred to councils not giving cash deposits but letters instead

The council pays the first months rent upfront which I then have to pay back by direct debit at approx £50 a month, exact figure to be determined once a let is found. It's nothing to do with LHA as otherwise they would just take it direct of my benefits or withhold a months payment, this is a payment the council makes independent of the housing benefit department and has to be paid back

At the end of the tenancy the final months payment is an overpayment seeing as LHA is paid in arrears even though the council paid the first month in advance. This has to be recovered by the tenant.

Jowo_2

EastMidsGal wrote: »

..
At the end of the tenancy the final months payment is an overpayment seeing as LHA is paid in arrears even though the council paid the first month in advance. This has to be recovered by the tenant.

Because LHA is paid in arrears, and most tenants have a month or two's notice when it comes to moving, why can't the tenant get the local council to stop the final month's payment?

I know that it can take a local council a long time to process a new claim but I got the impression (perhaps falsely) that it was quick to halt a claim.

EastMidsGal

Jowo wrote: »

Because LHA is paid in arrears, and most tenants have a month or two's notice when it comes to moving, why can't the tenant get the local council to stop the final month's payment?

I know that it can take a local council a long time to process a new claim but I got the impression (perhaps falsely) that it was quick to halt a claim.

That would negate the need for the council to recover any monies, the housing benefit dept can just make the final payment to the council to reimburse their loan for the first months rent.

They are very quick to halt a claim.

Thanks Jowo. I don't know if you have read my previous posts and know my current situation which has lead to me reading up and thinking about the pros and cons of my councils rent deposit scheme, especially in light of the new changes. You've come up with some really good points that I can take to the council because the way they do things now, as set out in the information and guide they have given me, seems like an absolute nightmare

Jowo_2

I know I'm not being much help here, since I'm only expressing bafflement.

My last remaining query is why the onus is on the tenant to recover the overpayment with the landlord? My understanding is that in the past, if a landlord receiving the housing benefit directly got an overpayment by the local council, the local council chased them for the refund. That was apparently the downside in receiving HB directly because while it reduced the risk of rent arrears, it exposed them to the risk of repaying back overpayments, including when the tenant applied for HB fraudulently.

Perhaps some other members can confirm if this is the case?

property.advert

So what happens to those who do not receive the full rent in HB ? Are landlords supposed to make separate arrangements with the tenant ?

How do they manage a situation where the HB amount changes, perhaps after a salary increase ? Is the landlord supposed to go and explain the council's decision to the tenant and get the extra from them ?

It is madness.

What should be acceptable is for landlords to be able to request that HB is paid to them and not the tenant from the start.

EastMidsGal

That is what annoys me Jowo. The housing officer was very clear that it was my responsibility to reclaim the overpayment, but to be honest I am not if it is her that doesn't give a hoot or the way my council have developed the scheme, but she was adamant and really didn't seem to care. She also told me at 32 weeks pregnant and with a disability I had to call into all the lettings agents in my local and surrounding areas and 'sell myself' Yeah right! I don't think these people really care about the client, in this case me! I think she just wants to discharge my homelessness application ASAP

Common sense says to wait it out for a council property, they have already put us on the waiting list for temp accommodation but nothing available yet. But then again, I really want to have moved and be settled by the time my baby is born as I am high risk for post natal depression and I couldn't handle a house move in the early months

If any other members can shed some light or confirm that rather than me pay the council back they can just sort it out with HB dept I would really appreciate it as I feel, especially after reading about the new regs that LHA can be paid direct to LLs and the way my council runs it scheme, in quite a vulnerable position. Thanks

EastMidsGal

I am absolutely fine with that property.advert. My issue is that if the rent is paid direct to the LL the tenant shouldn't be responsible to reclaim any overpayment

I am more than happy for the rent to go direct to the LL and for the council, the LL and the HB dept to work it out amongst themselves, that would be the ideal situation for me. What is FAR from ideal is where I am paying the council back for the first months rent and then left wide open at the end if there is an overpayment and the LL refuses to refund it and I am out of pocket by up to £1200 which is the LHA in this area AND I might still owe the council money if I haven't repaid the first months rent by that point, which at the rate they suggest would take three years. Bad enough for a tenant in other areas where rent could be £400-600 for example, but crippling for me in London where the amount I would stand to lose would be so much

Mrs_Arcanum

property.advert wrote: »

So what happens to those who do not receive the full rent in HB ? Are landlords supposed to make separate arrangements with the tenant ?

How do they manage a situation where the HB amount changes, perhaps after a salary increase ? Is the landlord supposed to go and explain the council's decision to the tenant and get the extra from them ?

It is madness.

What should be acceptable is for landlords to be able to request that HB is paid to them and not the tenant from the start.

Our tenants (long term MH disability or LD) manage this very nicely and arrange SOs for any shortfall.

You would be surprised how fast the HB department contacts the LL/HA for any overpayment of rent. If the council are paying the first month in advance (paid back over time by the tenant). The tenant should then claim from the council for a refund for the extra month (if it occurs). Crafty people will let the council know first that they are moving so the council can keep ahead of what payments should be made.