Advice on renting out to DSS tenants

silvercar

scorpio_princess wrote:

Could you not insist that the HB claimants pay you themselves, rather than having the council pay it to you? From what i've read you can take that option. But I suppose then there's the issue of them choosing to not pay their rent, which still leaves you without the money. I can see why this could put some landlords off, but i'm sure it doesn't happen with every HB claimant and every council.

You can (and I do), but not every tenant is in a position to pay a deposit and rent in advance.

As a landlord if I refuse all DSS I am limiting my potential tenants. As far as I am concerned if they pass credit checks (with guarantor if necessary) and can pay the rent on time I don't care whether they are on benefit or not. As long as tenants understand they are responsible for the rent then there is no misunderstanding. Good tenants make happy landlords, a long term tenant may well move in or out of a benefit situation, to catagorise tenants by their benefit status is arbitrary.

chant1l

I operate close to your part of the world and as a result of having to deal with the council I have stopped taking DSS. Two weeks ago I got a debit back from a tenant who left 18 months ago.....

dooper

Tassotti wrote:

Not sure where the previous two posts have come from...but hey...we're all drunk. :beer:

Seriously, if you rent to DSS, then take 3 months rent upfront and 3 months deposit (in other words don't do it)

I have nothing against people on benefits (most of my clients are), but dealing with the council is a nightmare. They seem to live in a different world.

eg..market rent for 2 bed flat £650.....flat...

council rent officer says it's £575....tenant has to find £75 per month...from where

The other way is to see if you local council have a scheme where they rent your property off you for five years at market rent and return it in the same condition

After five years of ASBO seekers and other scumbags, don't expect it back in the same condition.

Happy New Year All

Indeed but then again the council rent officer is in control of the public purse strings. Why should the taxpayer pay out 600 sheets a month when council /LA/housing asscm props are available for much less than this? There is a certain section of benefit claimant who think such accomodation isnt good enough for them and they therefore want to rent privately and let the rest of us pick up the tab !!!

lynzpower

dooper wrote:

Indeed but then again the council rent officer is in control of the public purse strings. Why should the taxpayer pay out 600 sheets a month when council /LA/housing asscm props are available for much less than this? There is a certain section of benefit claimant who think such accomodation isnt good enough for them and they therefore want to rent privately and let the rest of us pick up the tab !!!

I certainly would not say that this is the norm where I live and work. In fact Thatcher gawd bless her decided RTB was the best way forward for the nations housing needs, and tied in the inability for local councils to use funds to rebuild. thus mass loss of houses from the councils circulatory pot, and no ability to make any more to replace that loss of the "resource"

Most councils I know have at least one "private lettings officer" whos job it is to a) source landlords who are willing to plug the gap as the state no longer has the resource to provide and b) to try to convince the homeless to find a landlord to take them on, as they want them off the waiting list- as theres nothing to provide.

I say thank god for the few landlords who WILL provide a decent standard of accomodation to those that need it, as the state sure aint going to keep people off the streets, I know from experience.

silvercar

dooper wrote:

Indeed but then again the council rent officer is in control of the public purse strings. Why should the taxpayer pay out 600 sheets a month when council /LA/housing asscm props are available for much less than this? There is a certain section of benefit claimant who think such accomodation isnt good enough for them and they therefore want to rent privately and let the rest of us pick up the tab !!!

The problem is that there is a shortage of council/ LA housing making the private rental sector a necessity.

I doubt that benefit claimants think that they are onto a "good thing" renting privately and the taxpayer footing the bill, they run the risk that the landlord will decide to sell up and leave them at the whim of the council to find their next home. I doubt the council want to house people i expensive private homes, they would save their money and use their own stock - if they had enough.

scorpio_princess

dooper wrote:

Indeed but then again the council rent officer is in control of the public purse strings. Why should the taxpayer pay out 600 sheets a month when council /LA/housing asscm props are available for much less than this? There is a certain section of benefit claimant who think such accomodation isnt good enough for them and they therefore want to rent privately and let the rest of us pick up the tab !!!

And your evidence to support this statement is where exactly?

Councils will only pay out whatever they deem the going rate for rent in a particular area, and for a particular property. So, if there's just one or 2 people who are offered a one bed flat, but they decide they'd rather live in a 3 bed detached in a posh area, I hardly think the council will fund this! So, as I understand it, they will pay out a maximum amount (if a person is entitled to the full award), regardless of the size and location of their house. Any remainder has to be stumped up by the tenant(s), and - lets face it - most people on a council housing list and/or claiming HB is likely to be on a pretty tight budget, therefore hardly in a position to pick and choose where they live.
A friend of mine, who at the time had a 6 month old baby and was a single mum, had to sleep on her mum's sofa for 18 months because of the chronic shortage of council housing - and that was considered quick! Because her mum would never had kicked her out, the council decided she was ok where she was for the time being! Believe me, when she was finally offered her house, she practically flew to it!

If you object to taxpayers' money going towards public welfare, I only hope you're never in a position to need to resort to such a low level. I agree, some do take advantage, but I feel a country with no social welfare would have far worst problems than those with it.

the_commander

Had a house once upon a time and let to DSS.

House ended up trashed twice and paymens stopped. Council advised tennants to stay in house as it would take me 6 months to go through the courts to get them out.

Nearly bankrupt me and left with a disgusting house and no money.

Result: Wouldn't touch them with yours!!!

clutton_2

In terms of getting bad tenants out - it need not take 6 months at all if you know what you are doing - and therein lies the rub - amateurs (who do not research their newly found "BTL-Cash-Cow" and the complex legal implications) - get hold of any old AST and then wonder why - when they go to court - the judge throws it out and the tenants stay put.

Signing a tenancy agreement is a legally binding contract by BOTH parties, and so many tenants who trash houses or who don't pay rent treat this contract with utter contempt.

i find it contemptible that courts should side with such tenants who are robbing landlords.

Tell me about any other business, if you can, where folks can go and steal your goods and services for months and get away with it ?

rant over !!

scorpio_princess

clutton wrote:

In terms of getting bad tenants out - it need not take 6 months at all if you know what you are doing - and therein lies the rub - amateurs (who do not research their newly found "BTL-Cash-Cow" and the complex legal implications) - get hold of any old AST and then wonder why - when they go to court - the judge throws it out and the tenants stay put.

Signing a tenancy agreement is a legally binding contract by BOTH parties, and so many tenants who trash houses or who don't pay rent treat this contract with utter contempt.

i find it contemptible that courts should side with such tenants who are robbing landlords.

Tell me about any other business, if you can, where folks can go and steal your goods and services for months and get away with it ?

rant over !!

The transport/haulage industry is a bit like this I have to say - like I've mentioned on another thread, we're lucky to get paid on 60 days. One particular customer of ours suggested they pay their invoices just 3 times a year 'to cut down on all that unnecessary paperwork'! Some don't pay at all but we still have to work for certain companies because the alternative is to go out of business - if we don't do the work for cheap and agree to wait months for our money, some other bodgeit and scarper will -those are the kind of people we're competeing with. It's tough for many businesses out there at the moment, so anyone thinking of starting up in any industry - not least BTL - should think VERY long and hard about it. After seeing what my parents have been through in the last few years, I wouldn't start a business for love nor money. Maybe one day the government will introduce more legislation to protect small businesses and recognise the valuable role they play in the country's economy.

Sorry for veering off track a little, just get wound up about these things!

cwcw

Sorry, but what is a DSS tenant? What does DSS stand for?