Where should I live?

cit_k

dseventy wrote: »

Well it does.




I don't get the mindset here. Look at it from a LLs point of view.

You can't pay your rent.
You ask someone else to pay it for you. (the tax-payer)
That someone else subjects you to rules (eligiability criteria, changes in policy etc)

Why can't you see that this is high risk stuff?

And in to this that the LHA is paid direct to the claiment (who has a low income, money issues etc) not the LL!

Disaster. Insurance companies know risk, and hence they charge it!





Agree with this part.

D70

Surely benefit rent is more stable (apart from the occassional hiccups) than salary rent, simply because, unless you commit a crime etc, you should still be eligible for benefit rent.

However, someone could lose there job at any time, be fired, made redundant, have to accept a pay cut etc etc....

dseventy

cit_k wrote: »

However, someone could lose there job at any time, be fired, made redundant, have to accept a pay cut etc etc....

Are you really saying that its better to give credit to those on benefits than those in work and earning a wage?

Really??!?!

D70

outofmoney

dseventy wrote: »

Well it does.




I don't get the mindset here. Look at it from a LLs point of view.

You can't pay your rent.
You ask someone else to pay it for you. (the tax-payer)
That someone else subjects you to rules (eligiability criteria, changes in policy etc)

Why can't you see that this is high risk stuff?

And in to this that the LHA is paid direct to the claiment (who has a low income, money issues etc) not the LL!

Disaster. Insurance companies know risk, and hence they charge it!





Agree with this part.

D70

Cit_k has said it for me really but as this was aimed at me I will answer too.

My OH had a job once. We did not think paying the rent would be a problem. Then his company decided to swap from weekly to monthly pay. This affected our ability to pay rent for a month or two. Luckily our LL understood. A couple of years later OH lost his job. This time we definitely couldn't pay. It was totally unexpected and very bad timing. Again our understanding LL patiently waited for HB to come through.


Since then two of our children have been awarded DLA, so we 'work' as carers. We get income support so are entitled to HB.

Housing Benefit would only be stopped if our children die. I am hoping that this is far less likely than losing a job or something happening workwise to muck up regular pay.

So, in answer to your question, NO, I do not think we are a high risk! Plus just because we are on income support does not mean we will have money issues or will use our HB on anything other than rent.

You seem to have a very low opinion on people on benefits which is up to you but just remember that not everyone on benefits is a lowlife!

PoorCharleyBear

I know a landlord who said because two (subsequent) tenants were on benefits, they had not put their own money down as a deposit, so treated the place atrociously.
When they left, it was no issue to the departing tenants, as someone else picked up the tab.

He said 'never again'.
I have no experience of this - just his view so can't say how representative it is.

BigAunty

The payment of LHA and thus the rent may or may not be reliable for all sorts of reasons - admin and application errors when processing it, failure of the person receiving it to budget effectively, particularly when on a low income which has little contingency.

A person in employment may be subject to similar issues but a landlord is more likely to be able to enforce payment of arrears by various means. A person in rent arrears on benefits means that it is virtually impossible to recover substantial rent arrears - yes, a landlord may win their small claims court case, but the claimant will only pay it back at a fiver a week, tops!

Benefit claimants, along with students, are classed as higher risk for business reasons. It feels personal to them, who can blame them feeling discriminated against, but it's about business risk.

In the LHA pilot studies in 9 areas before it went nationwide, almost two thirds of landlords and agents said they would be less likely to let to HB tenants if they could not receive it directly. Around half of them would only let to HB tenants on condition that they directed payments to the landlord anyway. This advice was ignored.

But as it happens, I prefer that LHA claimants receive their benefits directly rather than being hand held and seeing the payment of their rent and the budgeting for it being someone else's responsibility.

stresshead81_2

I apalled at the remarks being made about DSS, or DWP, claimaints.

The person who started this thread is homeless. If he ends up, God forbid, on the streets he will have no chance of getting a job. To get a job you need an address. I am ex-homeless, I am not a druggy or an alcoholic, so I know what I am talking about here. Speak to your local council, if you are able to get help then you can be in a hostel very quickly thus allowing you to get started with help from them. If you need any further advice I shall be back on here tomorrow night.

As for making comments about benefit claimaints. Hmm.

I moved into current flat a year ago through a homelessness help scheme at my local council. I went through absolute hell trying to find a decent landlord who would take Housing Benefit. As a rule within this scheme I have my HB paid directly to the landlord. I am on Incap and low rate care/mobility DLA, I have deductions for social fund loans (had to take these loans out in order to buy furniture when moved in). I get 88% housing and council tax benefits which means I have to pay out £65 per month for rent and council tax top ups. On top of that I am paying back the loan I had from council to move in here. I pay all my bills myself. I am unable to work, read that as unable not unwilling, due to serious medical conditions that have resulted in me having to take incredibly strong painkillers. If it had not been for a stupid previous GP who was reluctant to fill any DWP forms in correctly I would have been on a higher band of DLA thus meaning my rent etc was covered.

I am lucky my landlord is brilliant. He feels that housing benefit claimaints should be given the chance to have somewhere to live that is of acceptable living conditions. I have had a landlord before who (bearing in mind I was desperate to get off streets at the time) was dodgy. He chucked tenants out if they were 24 hours late with the rent, even lying about housing benefit claimaints causing damages etc. The properties he rented out were disgusting and not even fit for a snake.

If I could work I would. It makes me sick there are benefit fraudsters out there making it harder and harder for people like me to get the right help. What makes me feel even more sick is people saying people on benefits are drains on resources (or words like that) of government or landlord themselves.

And one more thing, when a person is in a hostel as a homeless person their rent costs taxpayer upwards of £300 per week and that is not including staffing costs. £300 per week for a room that is cold and not homely? pffft!

outofmoney

Well Said :T

PoorCharleyBear wrote: »

I know a landlord who said because two (subsequent) tenants were on benefits, they had not put their own money down as a deposit, so treated the place atrociously.
When they left, it was no issue to the departing tenants, as someone else picked up the tab.

He said 'never again'.
I have no experience of this - just his view so can't say how representative it is.

If this is true it does not make it the norm.

Most people on HB find it so difficult to find somewhere decent that they tend to be long term. Due to this they look after the property as this is their home. Plus the deposit is nearly always paid by the tenant and if not, it is usually a relative or close friend.

People who are working and can pick and choose where to rent don't tend to stay put for as long. They are the ones that are more likely to wreck the place as to them it is just a temporary pad.