Housing benefits paid to landlord, i top it up. what about the '13th' payment?

tokenfield

pretzelnut wrote: »

Yes you can ask the council for a payment schedule. They will also work out your own payments. Tell the council what is happening, he may have other tenants that he's doing exactly the same too. The council can look further into it.

Your landlord SHOULD NOT be taking extra money off you. As you said your tendency agreement states housing benefit is to be paid direct to the landlord, it also states your actual rent.

As long as he gets paid his rent each month he can't evict you surely. He's praying on your fear of being homeless.

But what you are missing is that the agreement to pay the rent is between the tenant and the landlord. The council's limit of responsibility is to pay the welfare as agreed between the claimant and the council.

As I see it the council have fulfilled their legal obligation.

It's up to the tenant to decide whether to rock the boat with the landlord for the sake of £400 which isn't the tenant's money anyhow.
The best that can be achieved would be for the next years rent to be reduced by the £400 overpayment, but then the landlord will simply put the rent up by £400!!

But is the landlord taking 'extra' money off the tenant? The tenant was quite happy to come to an arrangement with the landlord by paying the regular monthly top up. The tenant should have dealt with this at the very beginning by calculating how the system would work and how much should be paid as a top up. Simply put, there was an agreement, verbal or written for the tenant to pay £146 every month.

Personally I wouldn't cause waves - I would be more than happy that I had a roof over my head - something that is very rare these days with private lets and HB applicants.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tokenfield wrote: »

Is it? You work for a salary - what has the OP done to 'earn' HB?

You may not like it, but a salary is an entitlement in exactly the same way as HB.

tokenfield wrote: »

Can they? I suppose so but then if the rent isn't paid using the HB, they would be out on their ear.

Indeed. Same as a tenant on a salary who didn't pay rent. But it's not illegal.

tokenfield wrote: »

In the OP's case, the HB goes direct to the landlord - is that what you would class a choice 'to do with it is entirely up to them'?

The tenant could simply ask for the HB to be paid direct to them. It IS their money, after all.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tokenfield wrote: »

But we are talking about a landlord that, as part of the tenancy agreement' has the HB paid direct to them.

It may well do, but it isn't enforceable. He might as well have a clause saying he will break a finger of the tenants for every weeks rent owed.... It wouldn't make it legal.

tokenfield wrote: »

No wonder that there are rent arrears and evictions rife within the category of those that have to rely on HB to pay the rent. And no wonder landlords run a mile as soon as you mention HB.

Not ALL landlords. Many have seen the advantages and make a very nice living from it. There is a maximum to the rent arrears a HB tenant can accrue before the LL gets payment direct to them as an entitlement. Not so the paying tenant, who can withhold his/her rent for as long as the eviction process can be drawn out..

tokenfield wrote: »

Personally I can't see what choice there is - you either pay the rent with it or you don't - the consequences are pretty obvious for the latter.

Indeed. But shouldn't we all have that choice? What other stick has a tenant to wave at the errant landlord than withholding rent?

tokenfield wrote: »

If I was a landlord and you a potential tenant - if you came to me with that attitude the answer would be that there is 'no room at the inn' even if the property was empty!

I don't think you would be the kind of landlord I would come to.

john539

inklove wrote: »

It was my landlord who stipulated that I must pay the top up amount of £146 on top of each months HB payment to make the rent, so surely he 'owes' me the 'extra' payment, as logically that amount is to go toward my rent, which I have been topping up. If you know what I mean.

However, when I mentioned the 'extra' payment to my landlord he claimed that there has been no extra payments and that my rent balance is £0/ fully up to date.

Does anyone have any advice or experience of this situation?

Ask your landlord again, then again, then show him the calculation, that the £146 top-up is wrong & he made a mistake.

Marisco

tokenfield wrote: »

You are living in Utopia!!

The tenant is NOT paying the rent - the council (the taxpayers) are paying the vast majority of it. The tenant is paying a small top up.

Many landlords would run a mile from any potential tenant if the rent is funded via HB for obvious reasons.

I would agree that if the tenant was paying the whole of the rent out of their salary, then yes they would be able to control how it is paid.
As it is, the tenant has little or no control over the way HB is paid direct to the landlord. In cases like the OP's, it is just one of those things were the landlord is able to take advantage of the system.

Right, I'll reword it then! The rent is getting paid in full, so as far as the LL is concerned that should be it!

It's not obvious at all, unless of course you're saying that all those who claim HB are low lifes who won't look after the property.

Would you be saying the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot, i.e the tenant was taking advantage of the system? I think not. More likely the tenant would be slated for "benefit scrounging"!!

[Deleted User]

I am very sorry you are in this situation. I completely appreciate how hard it is to find a landlord who will take HB tenents in an area of high rental properties demand.

I had the same situation. The Landlord wanted a guarantor, which I didn't have and then wanted me to tell HB that my bank account was in such disarray (which it wasn't at all) that rent needed to be paid direct to the landlord. I explained to him that I work very hard to keep my bank account in a reasonable situation and I couldn't then turn round and lie, saying the opposite. I was lucky. He accepted this and so I was able to top up the rent as necessary (for me it was £130 a month) and 'keep' the 13 month payment. It was a struggle at times to top up the rent, but obviously you have no choice.

Unfortunately the door is closed on this one. And I am sure (as I would be) you are scared if you make a fuss about the 'disappeared' 13 month payment, the landlord will evict you once the next fixed tenancy period is over. However, now the Landlord has confidence in your stability, it might be worth having a word with him to see if you can negotiate paying the whole rent directly after the HB has been paid into your account, rather than it being paid to him. If he is as slippery as my Landlord, I'd advise pointing out in a calm way that he has received the extra 13 month payment and you are wondering what can be done about that.

Unfortunately though, unfair though it is, there is little you can do other than try to find another property (and come up with another month's rent and deposit up front) if he refuses.., however illegal what he is doing is.

Its worth a try at least.

samroo

I have a tenant paying her rent to me in a similar fashion. The housing benefit payments seem to change every month so I can never been sure how much rent is coming in. The tenant pays her rent monthly, but it is only the amount to top up the rent on a 4 weekly basis. Then one-off odd payments also come in from the council, followed by pages and pages of information which is hard to decipher.

My tenant is lucky that I am keeping good control of the rent paid by her and housing benefit payments, but it is time consuming and is OK if there is only one rental property in such a situation.

tokenfield

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

You may not like it, but a salary is an entitlement in exactly the same way as HB.
.

Oh for goodness sake stop being silly.

Salary isn't an entitlement it is a payment on account of work performed - it is a payment as part of a contract.

Nobody can honestly say that a salary is no different to a welfare payment.

HB is a means tested welfare payment based on a needs basis. Salary is a contractual right for services performed.

You seem to be rather annoyed to be told that a welfare payment isn't the same as a wage or salary. I wonder why?

Your idea of both being the same wouldn't go down very well if you told that to a hard working employee!!

tokenfield

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It may well do, but it isn't enforceable. He might as well have a clause saying he will break a finger of the tenants for every weeks rent owed.... It wouldn't make it legal.


Not ALL landlords. Many have seen the advantages and make a very nice living from it. There is a maximum to the rent arrears a HB tenant can accrue before the LL gets payment direct to them as an entitlement. Not so the paying tenant, who can withhold his/her rent for as long as the eviction process can be drawn out..



Indeed. But shouldn't we all have that choice? What other stick has a tenant to wave at the errant landlord than withholding rent?



I don't think you would be the kind of landlord I would come to.

Maybe it isn't, but does the tenant really want to start this argument with the landlord? It is clear that the landlord only agree to let the property on the condition that they received the HB direct.
Maybe the tenant fancies being evicted for breach of contract.

Nope, this tenant has no stick - pay the rent that way or get out seems the option.

Maybe you wouldn't like me as your landlord - but the OP doesn't appear to have much choice in the matter. It's the landlord's way or the highway!

tokenfield

john539 wrote: »

Ask your landlord again, then again, then show him the calculation, that the £146 top-up is wrong & he made a mistake.

Errr the landlord made the mistake!!!!

The tenant made the mistake, not the landlord. The landlord probably knew what would happen and he would have no responsibility in law to advise the tenant.

It is up to the tenant to satisfy themselves that what they are signing for is fully understood.

If they can't do simple maths, then they leave themselves wide open.