Council disclosed information to landlord

Marisco

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I can see why a tenant does this, but I can't understand why landlords' don't ensure that their insurance covers DSS. Why give insurers a reason not to pay out on a claim?

It probably costs more in premiums, and the object of the exercise is to make as much money for the least outlay!!;)

cakey

HappyMJ wrote: »

Agreed....referencing will not tell you if someone is employed or not. I can always give my mates name and number to give me an employer reference even though I am self employed. My tax details are confidential. My payslips are non existant. My accounts also show minimal profit so I am not on benefits as such but on tax credits. The potential tenant may not even be on benefits at all until they actually have the property. e.g. a wife or husband asked to leave the marital home by the other will not be on benefits...yet...

I've seen the wording myself too and it's only for tenants who are already on benefits and those benefits are full benefits. It annoys me every time I see this. I have about £6,000 in cash yet I allegedly can't rent from some landlords who say "NO DSS" because they (the insurance) claim that they can't trust me yet I can easily afford the rent due to housing benefit paying all of it.

Please if someone could link to the insurance wording on another policy excluding all who claim just a few pounds of housing benefit claimants I would like to read it. All on minimum wages therefore can never rent as they are all entitled to some form of housing benefit. Add children to the equation and many more can claim at least a few quid in housing benefit. I've seen it in my local area. £500 rent therefore monthly salary of £1500 required to be affordable but on that income someone with 3 kids would get some housing benefit for an appropriately sized 3 bedroomed house. So who rents that house that says NO DSS???? No one...If you earnt more you would rent the nicer place down the road as it's affordable.

i'm moving house next week. the agency performed referencing, not only did i have to provide payslips, but they also called my employer and asked for confirmation on fax headed paper.

So in a word, yes they can.

Benefits_Bod

On the original issue of whether a LA is entitled to contact a landlord, the law must obviously be applied but the answer will still depend on the facts.

Where payment of HB (including cases subject to LHA) is made to the LL (or agent), the LA is legally required to notify the landlord of the amount of HB to be paid and the period covered. Note the distinction between the amount to be paid and the amount of entitlement which can be different.

Where there has been an overpayment of HB AND where the LL is a "person affected", the LL is legally entitled to challange the overpayment including ANY matter embodied within the decision out of which the overpayment arises. This means a claimant's financial and household information can legitimately be disclosed (and, often, MUST be disclosed). This is so the LL has information to allow him/her to appeal against the decision if s/he feels inclined to do so. Nothing in the Data Protection Act assists the claimant in these circumstances.

Where payment is NOT made to a LL (or agent) and assuming the LL does not become a "person affected", there is legal authority to support a view that a LA can still legitimately make enquiries directly to the LL if it is both reasonable and appropriate for the purposes of making a decision on a claim and/or award. There is also legal authority where a Social Security Commissioner observed that when a claim is made for benefit, the claimant inherently accepts a degree of interference in his/her private life.

If a LA contacts a LL as a matter of blanket policy, that approach almost certainly will breach the Data Protection Act.

On the subject of visits, LAs can indeed *ask* to visit. However, contrary to the impression given by some LAs, there is in fact no legal basis on which officers can insist on entry. If a LA (or DWP) officer arrives at the door, a claimant is within his legal right to refuse access. Threats to stop benefit on the sole fact of a refusal to give an officer entry (whether through suspension or ending entitlement) is, in my view, reprehensible conduct.

As the law currently stands, the matter of the effect on a landlord's insurance by having a benefit claimant as a tenant is not a matter for LAs acting in their capacity as HB administrators. Whether it *should* be is another matter but it's irrelevant in the context of the original post.

rogerblack

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Even if you include tax credits, it's a complete exaggeration to say that the majority of the population claim some form of benefits.

It's gotta be getting on that way.
Child benefit - 0-18 (maybe more)
State pension 62-80
That's 36 years out of 80 already.
A large slice of the population claims tax credits, I suspect that's over half already, even not counting JSA, ESA, IB, IIDB, vaccine damage payments, CTB, HB, AA, DLA, health in pregnancy grants, ...

HappyMJ

cakey wrote: »

i'm moving house next week. the agency performed referencing, not only did i have to provide payslips, but they also called my employer and asked for confirmation on fax headed paper.

So in a word, yes they can.

As I said I give my mates phone number whenever I need a telephone employer reference for bank loans and credit cards and possibly even tenancies if I were to move. I print my own payslips as owner of the company and employer of myself.

cit_k

So, lots of claims, and no one can actually produce this exact wording from the insurance policy?

Surely, if you know its present, you can post it up.

The specific sentence(s) prohibiting LHA or HB claimaints.

cakey

i can't post it up, i move next week and it is packed away. why would you give your mates number? are you saying the OP should lie on their tenancy agreement? no one is saying the referencing is full proof, as it relies on people telling the truth.

mickey54

cakey wrote: »

i'm sorry this may go down like a lead fart, but the landlord would have every right to evict the tenant if they did not disclose they are receiving HB/LHA. i am a landlord myself and it is against my insurance and mortgage to let to those of benefits. if anything happened to my house, i would not be covered.if the OP hasn't disclosed this they are being very irresponsible and deceptive.

And if they lose their job after taking up a tenancy - you would put them out on the street if they had to claim benefits?

puddy

Sixer wrote: »

Would landlords not be better served by choosing more expensive premiums that will remain valid if an employed tenant subsequently loses their job or starts earning less and begins a claim for LHA?

exactly, seeing as renting a property is a business (whether someone calls themselves an accidental landlord or not), you have to mitigate risk.

it is fact that its not common for the LA to contact the landlord, in all the time i worked in hb for private tenants (5 years) i never contacted a landlord unless the benefit was in payment to them, i never needed to

so with that in mind, it is entirely possible that the working tenant that you diligently credit checked and had information about their income, either became unemployed or had a pay cut and had to claim hb or had a job change and had to claim hb

seeing as you would never know, your responsiblity as a landlord is to take insurance that will cover that possibility

puddy

cakey wrote: »

i'm moving house next week. the agency performed referencing, not only did i have to provide payslips, but they also called my employer and asked for confirmation on fax headed paper.

So in a word, yes they can.

and how would they tell if you claimed benefits from the checks?

and how would they tell if you lost your job next week?