Why no DSS/LHA ?

overnetworld

I can think of one reason but why would a landlord prefer working tenants to those on benefits ?

Advantages:

I can get more rent from a person on benefits and I can charge full or close to LHA rate.

After 8 weeks (if not paid by tenant) I can request for LHA to be paid directly to me.

thoughts/comments/wisdom appreciated.

Xbigman

If the landlord is paid directly and it turns out the tenant did not actually qualify for housing benefit, the landlord can be asked to repay all monies they have recieved direct.
Happened to the ex wife of someone I know.

Was the reason you were thinking of tax evasion?



X

Alias_Omega

Is so easy to lose LHA/HB entitlement, through a partner moving in, or trying to earn a bit of extra cash on the side.

If LHA/HB is withdrawn, the tenant may not pay and the landlord becomes the victim.

Also, Landlord Insurance is higher for LHA/HB tenants, but not as expensive as asylum seekers.


(We accept LHA/HB, CCJ's etc tenants on our property. Someone has to have a clean start sometime)

overnetworld

no the advantage I was thinking of was the idea of tenants who take more pride in their home. (however this might not necessarily be true)

Wee_Willy_Harris

My advice would be to look at the tenants, not the source of income. Carry out sensible credit checks, take up references, etc etc etc. If everything checks out, you have done all that you can to ensure a successful tenancy. LHA claimants can be as much of a nightmare as those who are not claiming. And they can be as much of a blessing too. It's the individual that may cause the problem, not their source of income.

Werdnal

I have let my flat for just over 11 years now, and in that time had 4 different tenants, 3 of whom were HB, and only 1 ever caused a problem.

However, in addition to the problem of any overpayment being recalled by the local authority, now that LHA is paid direct to tenant, they sometimes choose not to pass it onto the LL. The one who caused problems preferred to give his to the landlord of his local pub!

There are also clauses in some BTL/CTL mortgages and insurance policies not the let to LHA tenants.

bifold

I only let to working people,
1)Cheaper insurance.
2)Less wear and tear(since they are not in occupation 24/7).
3)have money to spend on cleaning products.

Mrs_Z

Equally, I would only ever consider working people - more chances of getting the rent paid regularly and the place looked after.

roses

When I had a lodger, my home insurance said i couldn't have someone on benefits as a condition of my insurance - I have no idea why though, all they said was they were higher risk

Anubis_2

What about hard working people who have lost their job recently? What about disabled people? I do think that a high percentage do it for tax evasion, you can get decent people on benefits. I have never missed a single payment to my LL in 15 years, disabled, on benefits, and we buy cleaning items....

flappy_mcwarbucks

So, if you're a landlord that has a working person in your flat, but looses their job. Are you then going to kick them out, because instantly they turn into bad tenants?

more chances of getting the rent paid regularly and the place looked after.

And i suppose that people on benefits are all dirty, filthy animals?

There are a lot of assumptions flying around on this thread. And you know what they say about people with assumptions...