Can you get housing benefit if your own property is rented out?

BigAunty

noin004 wrote: »

I have a similar question to the original post, but a slightly different situation. I have to move to a bigger house as I have 2 children who are currently sharing a bedroom and by law I have to separate them by the time my daughter turns 8.

You would have to identify if this falls within the exceptions I listed on the HB regulations earlier in the post. Does it?

There's no law for owner-occupiers, simply guidance for social housing allocation and even then, social housing landlords have no obligation to honour it when a household expands over time, just discretion if they have a spare property in their stock. There are plenty of social housing tenants in over-occupied properties (and under occupied, too.).

Caz3121

noin004 wrote: »

I have been told by social services that I have to separate the children as it is 1 boy & 1 girl sharing a room. The rent on a bigger property would be more than I am currently paying for a mortgage. If I sold the house, I would be able to claim enough HB to cover the difference of what I am currently paying on a mortgage & what rent would be, but as I said I am in negative equity, so selling isnt really an option.

You would be only be given the LHA rate of a 2 bedroom property unless 1 child is over 10 so, even if you were able to sell the house you will either have a shortfall of rent or could choose to find a 3 bedroom place for the 2 bedroom rate.
I think you need to get social services to confirm why they believe you need to separate the children and what law they are quoting

BigAunty

noin004 wrote: »

I have been told by social services that I have to separate the children as it is 1 boy & 1 girl sharing a room.

Ask them to provide details of this law. Also, ask them if they get you a council house if it's so important to them. You could always sleep in the lounge and give one of them your bedroom.

You can run this demand past Citizens Advice or Shelter.

BigAunty

noin004 wrote: »

... The house I own is in negative equity, so I cannot afford to sell it. Looking at rental prices locally, if I rent out my house I would get just enough each month to make the mortgage repayment. ...

Your lender will not give you permission to rent out your property while you are in negative equity.

Also, it's not enough just to assume the rent will cover the mortgage - there are void periods, gas safety certificates, letting fees, repairs, landlords insurance, tax and rent arrears to factor in. Plus you have to consider Capital Gains Tax.

If your tenant doesn't pay, it takes up to 6 months to evict them through the courts, a surefire way to get a trashed property repossessed unless you've got lots of savings.

But your lender won't let you rent it out anyway, so that's the end of it.

noin004

BigAunty wrote: »

Your lender will not give you permission to rent out your property while you are in negative equity.

But your lender won't let you rent it out anyway, so that's the end of it.

I have spoken to the lender about my different options & it was them who actually suggested renting the property out. They are happy to transfer my mortgage to a buy to let one (subject to a smallish fee), but it was just the HB I was unsure about.

BigAunty

noin004 wrote: »

I have spoken to the lender about my different options & it was them who actually suggested renting the property out. They are happy to transfer my mortgage to a buy to let one (subject to a smallish fee), but it was just the HB I was unsure about.

It's highly unusual for a lender to consent to do this when there is no equity in the property but this does not address the matter of whether you have sufficient contingency to cover the mortgage on your own property and the rent on the new one if you have tenant issues or high repair costs.

ManicMum

skintandscared wrote: »

Because you can't plough all your disposable income into an asset which you own, giving you a sizeable asset, then get the taxpayer to pick up your bills for you! How does that make you any different to those who "p**s money away and then expect council to pay their rent"??! There are many hardworking taxpayers who've never claimed a penny in benefits but can't afford to buy a house! Why should we indirectly pay for yours?!

Try moving to Scotland. ANyone can afford to buy here. We had no job, so moved 500 miles for a job. We bought a house and have paid the mortgage right down. We didn't sit around moaning that we couldn't afford to buy.

ManicMum

mealone wrote: »

She is going to come a manic mess if you read all her threads here and she deserves it.

What a disgusting thing to say. I have done nothing illegal. I am am honest and hard working. SOunds like you are jealous to me.

ManicMum

poppy10 wrote: »

Not quite. From other posts it looks like she made a meaty profit from selling her BTL property last year.

Can't go wrong with bricks and mortar. :money:

Hardly a BTL. It was an unfortunate case of buying a property before selling the other one, just as the crash happened in 2007. I find it amazing I have to justify myself like this. The profit,as you call it, was just the equity from the house we lived in originally which had we sold the house before buying the other would have gone with us in the first place. This is no different to you selling your house and buying another. The profit you refer to is a red herring.

ManicMum

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Yes it was, but she's now altered her first post and deleted much of what she said.

What??? I have not altered or deleted anything.