What does no DSS actually mean?.......

Benji

katygeorge wrote: »

im getting £18 a week towards my rent and havnt told my ll, i pay my rent from my wages and then have the housing benefit when it hits the bank so its not effecting me paying my rent in full and ontime so ive not said anything

Is there a reason you haven't told him? Please read my comment above about insurance.

If the roof blew off and the insurance didn't pay, you would probably be landed with a CCJ for the £8k and life would go on (well the landlord would be eight grand poorer having had to fund his uninsured roof repairs).

If the roof blew off, and injured you - possibly disabling you for life - the above would still apply but there would be no compo for you as the insurers would refuse to pay that too.

Most landlords are not asset rich - most rental property is mortgaged.

Benji

property.advert wrote: »

As an aside, if the service level agreement with the council is to pay within 12 weeks and not 8 weeks, then you can add another 5 weeks to that total bringing it up nearer to £8000 and then you are certainly in doo doo land and caught in ever decreasing circle.

Councils have an obligation under the 2006 Housing Benefit Regulations to make a payment in advance of housing allowance if payment is not processed within 14 days of all required information being provided by tenant/landlord.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Benji wrote: »

Councils have an obligation under the 2006 Housing Benefit Regulations to make a payment in advance of housing allowance if payment is not processed within 14 days of all required information being provided by tenant/landlord.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I must let my local council know that...it'll cheer them up when 'dealing' with the 4 month old claims by sending out a letter saying that all the required evidence provided 4 months ago is out of date, so the claimant must provide up to date evidence or the claim will be closed.

Soniclord

gizmo111 wrote: »

The LHA is a bit of a minefield as they pay the tenants fortnightly and LL want their rents monthly ususally meaning there is a shortfall from the start.

I'm a little puzzled by this, you say LHA is a bit of a minefield because they pay tenants fortnightly? That's not the case where I live, they pay it every 4 weeks not every 2 weeks. Does it depend on what council is paying the LHA??

Morglin

Benji wrote: »

No, it means no state benefits at all. There are a number of LHA claimants who would be able to meet their obligations regarding payment dates and amounts - but a very large percentage work on the basis that the council pay 2/4 weeks in arrears, so that's when I'll pay the landlord - irrespective of the fact that they have agreed a contract with the landlord that says one month in advance.

• If you qualify for state benefits, you are unlikely to pass the credit check/referencing for the property.
• If, by some miracle, you do, then your non declaration of benefits may invalidate the landlords insurance (eg Directline won't insure benefits tenants) - guess who would be liable if they refused a claim?
• Also your non-declaration of benefits (if asked OR if the ad says no DSS etc) would give the landlord grounds for eviction under ground 17 section 8 of the 1988 Housing Act.

We all have to play within the rules - tenants AND landlords.
===============

EDIT: Most of the above has been covered by other posts - Doh. Teach me to read the whole thread before picking up my keyboard!

Most state benefits are not means tested, so would have no impact whatsoever on any credit checks, whatever the check is for. You can be very well off and still getting statutory and/or contributory benefits.

We have not ever had a problem getting credit cards etc., despite being on a combination of private pensions and state benefits, simply because if your credit record is good, then you will pass the checks.

As for whether you should notify a landlord of getting LHA, there appear to be mixed messages given out by various governments, and their departments.

The reason it was changed to the tenant getting it direct was so that (and this was one of the reasons given, at the time), the landlord didn't need to be told of a tenant's financial circumstances.

The only legal obligation on the tenant was (and is) to pay the rent promptly and keep the property in good order.

I think insurance companies would have a job on their hands if they refused to pay out a claim just because a tenant was either on a state pension or on disability benefits.

Anti discrimination laws would surely be bought into play here, by any competent solictor.

I would also have thought an eviction notice, simply for being eligible for benefits, or being eligible for them to start with, could be taken to court and argued with, if a tenant chose to do so - be interesting to see what the EHRC would have to say, as what was acceptable in 1988 probably wouldn't be nowadays..

Lin