Private Renting- housing benefit??

dseventy

BigAunty wrote: »

Don't worry about Cit_K - all employers and landlords are intrinsically evil and all claimants are vulnerable and exploited...

Hang on...let Cit_K respond first. He/She asked to see evidence of LLs (and claiments, and Shelter) views, they have it now, lets await a response before we hang him out to dry.

Shelter is often pointed to on this board as a source of help, for both claiments (and LLs use it too), I hope if nothing else it provides an insight from a LL point of view.

D70

fogartyblue.

cit_k wrote: »

Source for this fact please?

Ask the question on this site. I am sure that you will get some very interesting comments.

Besides which, I know many landlords (17 to be precise including a very large one that is regularly featured on Watchdog!!)

None will grant a tenancy to anybody who is on HB.
Most will not be prepared to accept a guarantor

All require the tenant to be in full time employment with earnings above £25,000 pa.

Why, because all say that those who claim HB are more trouble than those that work and pay their own way.

Having said that, have a look on Rightmove to see how many agents/landlords will accept HB applicants!!

Personally, I wouldn't lease a property out to anybody that couldn't fund the first 6 months up front, that wasn't working earning a minimum of £25k, that didn't have an excellent credit report, that claimed any type of means tested benefit and put up at least 2 months bond!

Anubis_2

fogartyblue. wrote: »

Ask the question on this site. I am sure that you will get some very interesting comments.

Besides which, I know many landlords (17 to be precise including a very large one that is regularly featured on Watchdog!!)

None will grant a tenancy to anybody who is on HB.
Most will not be prepared to accept a guarantor

All require the tenant to be in full time employment with earnings above £25,000 pa.

Why, because all say that those who claim HB are more trouble than those that work and pay their own way.

Having said that, have a look on Rightmove to see how many agents/landlords will accept HB applicants!!

Personally, I wouldn't lease a property out to anybody that couldn't fund the first 6 months up front, that wasn't working earning a minimum of £25k, that didn't have an excellent credit report, that claimed any type of means tested benefit and put up at least 2 months bond!

So all private Landlords require every tenant to be earning more than TWICE NMW? That explains why there are a lot of empty rental properties in my area then, since the average wage is 12k IF you are lucky enough to be in full time employment (majority are 0 hour part time contracts here.)

If they are dissing all those who claim LHA with the same brush, and cutting the average working man out the equation who WILL claim tax credits etc, then they deserve to have their properties empty IMHO.

There are two around my corner that have been for rental for the last 12 months and still remain empty. I can only think the LL have those rules you stipulate. FWIW I have been a private tenant for over 15 years and never ever missed one single payment.

dseventy

Anubis wrote: »

So all private Landlords require every tenant to be earning more than TWICE NMW? That explains why there are a lot of empty rental properties in my area then, since the average wage is 12k IF you are lucky enough to be in full time employment (majority are 0 hour part time contracts here.)

I don't ask for 25K.

I expect the tenants to be in full time (checkable references) employment with the rent being similar percentage % to borrowing rates for mortgages.

I don't want LHA tenants are they are subject to the rules of policy change (recent changes to rules), eligibilty criteria ("My LHA has been stopped") and IMO the lack of "my rent, my house, my responsibilty" (ie the states paying).

D70

Anubis_2

dseventy wrote: »

I don't ask for 25K.

I expect the tenants to be in full time (checkable references) employment with the rent being similar percentage % to borrowing rates for mortgages.

I don't want LHA tenants are they are subject to the rules of policy change (recent changes to rules), eligibilty criteria ("My LHA has been stopped") and IMO the lack of "my rent, my house, my responsibilty" (ie the states paying).

D70

But some who are working may be claiming LHA..... Along with tax credits etc. what about the tenants who have just lost their job in your property and have to claim LHA?

What about those who are working and claiming part LHA?

Your first two reasons for not wanting LHA tenants are a moot point when someone who is working full time can be subjected to "policy change" - they are put on part time hours, and "eligibility criteria" - they have been made redundant/ lost their job, and both of these scenarios have the same chance of happening as LHA rule change or LHA stopping.

In today's climate with so many unemployed, not everyone of them is a good for nothing. Many have lost employment due to the recession etc, and claiming lha in whole or part does not imply a bad person, neither does claiming benefits.

What about those who are unable to work or have part time employment due to health?

It seems to me there are going to be a lot more homeless in the next few years, along with a lot of empty privately rented houses. With the huge shortage of social housing, together with LL refusing those on LHA (which also includes those that work), and those who are disabled, I see no other outcome than homeless and empty houses unless the economy picks up and workforce increases and housing benefit goes back to being paid direct to LL.

fogartyblue.

Anubis wrote: »

So all private Landlords require every tenant to be earning more than TWICE NMW? That explains why there are a lot of empty rental properties in my area then, since the average wage is 12k IF you are lucky enough to be in full time employment (majority are 0 hour part time contracts here.)

If they are dissing all those who claim LHA with the same brush, and cutting the average working man out the equation who WILL claim tax credits etc, then they deserve to have their properties empty IMHO.

There are two around my corner that have been for rental for the last 12 months and still remain empty. I can only think the LL have those rules you stipulate. FWIW I have been a private tenant for over 15 years and never ever missed one single payment.

All of the LL that I know insist on earnings of that level.
Well then your area is different to mine.
A 2 bed terrace currently retns for £750pm and a 3 bed end terrace rents at £850pm.

There are no empty properties, in fact the £1000+ properties are the easiest to let. One of the LL I know has property worth£560m and very rarely has an empty property. He concentrates on the 'poorer end' of the market with 2 & 3 bed properties.

I am told that they would prefer to have a property vacant for a few months if they have to, instead of running the risk of renting to someone that is reliant on benefits to pay the rent. Benefits stop, get interupted etc and the first person they tend to knock is the LL!

dseventy

cit_k wrote: »

Source for this fact please?

Its disappointing to see that cit_K has not responded here. I offered cit_k the benefit of the doubt that he/she has not read up onthe subject, but its clear they have not and my links prove it.

Oh well......

D70

Hmm71

dseventy wrote: »

Found it

http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/236352/For_Whose_Benefit.pdf

Read that or the summary from here :

http://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_practice/policy_library/policy_library_folder/for_whose_benefit_-_a_study_monitoring_the_implementation_of_local_housing_allowance


Now tell me, you have a house to rent... LHA or working tenants?

D70

It's not always "working" OR "lha" though D70. I work full time but my income is low and I get some LHA/HB - whatever you want to call it. Landlords might be surprised to find out how many of their working tenants have to claim LHA but have just kept quiet about it.

HappyMJ

There is a property near me...a 3 bedroom property. It rents out for £450 a month. £450 times 30 is £13,500. That meets the annual minimum income requirement to rent a property with most agencies yet a family with 2 children would be entitled to claim some LHA to help pay the rent. To not be entitled to any benefit that same family would have to earn £32,264. http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/pdf/Income_limits_WTC_and_CTC_combined.pdf

If they were both working and did actually earn that much between them then £32,264 divided by 30 means they should be renting a property for less than £1,075 a month and be able to afford it and not need to claim any benefits at all.

I find it strange that an adult working in a minimum wage job earning £13,500 with a stay at home partner would be declined the property due to the fact they need to claim some LHA.

dseventy

Hmm71 wrote: »

It's not always "working" OR "lha" though D70. I work full time but my income is low and I get some LHA/HB - whatever you want to call it. Landlords might be surprised to find out how many of their working tenants have to claim LHA but have just kept quiet about it.

I understand that its not either/or, but for me personally if you can't afford to pay the rent yourself (or need help) and rely on others to help, thats too much of a risk for me.

Those that keep quiet are risking their homes, if the LL finds out they are withholding that, or worse need to claim off a restrictive LLs/home insurance policy and it comes to light, both the LL and the tenant suffer.

I am lucky, there is high demand for the location my properties, so I can be really picky about tenants and certainly don't need those tenants who can't pay the rent themselves. But eventually its down to individual LLs to make the calls themselves.

D70