The council have sent me a questionnaire for hb claim

Tiglet

Scooby_Man wrote:

Originally Posted by prudryden
Another reason to steer clear of HB tenants!

In fact, it is this kind of perception that has led to a massive shortfall of houses for council tenants in my local area.

If you take on a tenant who is on HB, it is difficult to get them to leave when you want to end the tenancy, because the council will not find them alternative accommodation if they are considered to have made themselves "intentionally" homeless.

That includes such reckless behaviour as moving out when you end the tenancy, or when you get a Court Order, or at any time before the day the bailiffs actually throw them out. So, taking on a HB tenant means that at some point you might very well have to spend a fortune on legal fees. This isn't the tenant's fault; it's the council that forces them to behave in a way that makes them unpopular with landlords.

silvercar

works both ways. get HB paid to the landlord and there is a risk of a clawback for false claims; get HB paid to the tenant and there is the risk they won't spend it on rent.

I prefer to have HB paid to the tenant, the tenant is then clear they are responsible for the whole rent (including any top up) and I get the rent on the day its due, not waiting for the council to sort themselves out.

As far as building insurance is concerned, how are you meant to know whether a tenant is claiming benefit at a ny given time?

prudryden

Gorgeous_George wrote:

My tenant is a HB claimant.

£60 extra for buildings insurance.

Might have to increase the rent to cover my additional costs



GG

Insurance companies must have statistics/tables to show that it is prudent to increase the cost of insurance due to extra risk. Insurance companies usually get it right.

Gorgeous_George

prudryden wrote:

Insurance companies must have statistics/tables to show that it is prudent to increase the cost of insurance due to extra risk. Insurance companies usually get it right.

I'm sure - just like women are better drivers! :rotfl:

Mt LL's insurance includes cover for lost rent so it's probably for this that they are increasing the premiums. Also, unemployed people may spend more time at home thereby increasibng the opportunity for damage to occur. I would have thought that it is contents that are at the greatest risk rather than the buildings.

My broker could not find me a quote for LL's insurance that allowed the tenant to pay me the rent having had the HB paid to him. I had to have HB paid direct to me and the council will do this via BACS.



GG

silvercar

Gorgeous_George wrote:

My broker could not find me a quote for LL's insurance that allowed the tenant to pay me the rent having had the HB paid to him. I had to have HB paid direct to me and the council will do this via BACS.

GG

My point is that you wouldn't know if the tenant was claiming benefit if he/ she had the benefit paid directly to them.

Also I thought a tenant had to be 2 months in areas before you could automatically get the council to pay you directly.

I wonder if your insurance issues were caused because you were looking for rent protection rather than just building insurance?

Gorgeous_George

I think there is no reason why I should know but, in this case, the HB Office have written to the LL so he clearly does know. It's a question that they asked when quoting. Without a clear answer there was no offer of insurance.

Two months in arrears and he's out (or at least a section 21 served).

In my case, my tenant is an honest sort of chap and I foresee no problems. Previous tenants were employed and scum. One day, I'll catch up with them



GG