Landlord "rejection of HB claimants".....

45002

There are two LL's near to me,who will only have HB claimants

Mind you the Tenants have to be age 50 and over and sign HB rent direct to LL,before there move in ...

45002

tbs624 wrote: »

LL couple Judith and Fergus Wilson with c 1000 properties in the Kent area have, according to newspaper reports, "served eviction notices on all tenants who are benefit claimants and will not take any new tenants who require housing benefit."

See http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/04/eviction-tenants-housing-benefit-blackspots

Some MSEers will recall the Wilsons from previous press coverage such as this

Do we think that LLs who discriminate in this way, regardless of the individual T's rent payment record, should be able to continue to benefit from tax concessions?

Yes, some BTL mortgages have specific exclusion clauses on "permitted" Ts but the Wilsons have not apparently cited this as a reason for their decision and no doubt many of their properties are now mortgage free.

That story reminds me of Dame Shirley Porter and her Conservative colleagues and officials on Westminster City Council in the late 80's

Who remember that


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/westminster-scandal-housing-policy-was-disgraceful-gerrymandering-1346450.html

Gerrymandering Again !

BigAunty

45002 wrote: »

There are two LL's near to me,who will only have HB claimants

Mind you the Tenants have to be age 50 and over and sign HB rent direct to LL,before there move in ...

The right to direct HB payments to the landlord was removed in the private housing sector when Local Housing Allowance was introduced quite a few years ago.

HB is now routinely paid directly to HB claimants. Local councils are supposed to only pay HB directly to landlords in exceptional circumstances, such as when the tenant is vulnerable (such as learning difficulties) where they can't manage their money or where the tenant has a history of rent arrears.

HB claimants have never been very popular with landlords for a whole number of reasons (not just prejudice, and not just due to mortgage/insurance clauses). They are even less popular now that they receive their HB directly.

45002

BigAunty wrote: »

The right to direct HB payments to the landlord was removed in the private housing sector when Local Housing Allowance was introduced quite a few years ago.

Sorry I should have added

The LL's have a special agreement with the local council and HB is paid direct to LL's....

LL and Tenants are very happy with this arrangement ....

BigAunty

45002 wrote: »

Sorry I should have added

The LL's have a special agreement with the local council and HB is paid direct to LL's....

LL and Tenants are very happy with this arrangement ....

Granted that all 3 parties are happy with the arrangement but this is in total breach of the HB regs/guidance unless the tenants are classed as vulnerable.

These are the reasons cited for the introduction of LHA and motivation for paying tenants directly

http://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/chief_executive/finance/revenues/benefits/lha/lha.aspx#why_was

It's supposed to eradicate the mindset from long term HB claimants that 'I don't pay any rent' and that their tenancy contract is between the council and the landlord.

Social housing landlords will see HB paid to social housing tenants in the future due to the move to the Universal Credit system and in the areas that are being trialled, find the arrears have risen and the tenants require significant intervention to get them to hand over the HB to the landlord.

tbs624

mrginge wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a subsection of people (LLs) should be financially disadvantaged because of a personal choice about how they run their businesses?

My bolding. The Wilsons? :rotfl:

Such LLs (with massive property "portfolios") have already skewed their local housing market, pricing other potential buyers out. That they should then be able to earmark that same large number of properties as being unavailable to anyone in receipt of benefit, whilst themselves being heavily subsidised by other tax payers is something that some may find abhorrent.

mrginge wrote: »

Is that not discrimination?

Why not think of the provision of certain LL tax breaks more as a "carrot", an incentive to encourage the provision of rental properties to a broader T market?

mrginge wrote: »

Until there is a law in place which forbids such a choice being made i don't really see what the problem is.

We can tell.

BigAunty

poppysarah wrote: »

Part of it is concern over how the benefits cap affects families with lots of kids. Although I seem to remember the Ferguses only buy 2-3 bedroomers.

.

Yes, here is someone with a large family on the Benefit forum claiming to live in slum housing whose rent he cannot afford because he is affected by the benefit cap which won't be lifted until his claim for PIP (disability benefit) is granted.

He receives £330 per month discretionary housing benefit but cannot pay the remaining £320 per month rent (£74 a week) out of what I assume is his £500 a week benefits for the 7 person household (2 adults, 5 kids). When he gets PIP, he is not subject to the cap.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4859869

mrginge

tbs624 wrote: »

My bolding. The Wilsons? :rotfl:

Such LLs (with massive property "portfolios") have already skewed their local housing market, pricing other potential buyers out. That they should then be able to earmark that same large number of properties as being unavailable to anyone in receipt of benefit, whilst themselves being heavily subsidised by other tax payers is something that some may find abhorrent.

Are you suggesting that ALL landlords are like this pair?

Why not think of the provision of certain LL tax breaks more as a "carrot", an incentive to encourage the provision of rental properties to a broader T market?

We can tell.

Because that would penalise many landlords, possibly making them either increase rents or simply withdraw from the market.
How would that 'encourage the provision of rental properties'?

Perhaps the government could actually build some more houses instead?

Brallaqueen

The government is doing a very good job of making a niche market even more niche. Poor reputation (deserved or not), no longer allowing direct payments to those LL willing to them on, some evidence of higher rent arrears since the removal of direct payment and now benefit caps.

Voyager2002

00ec25 wrote: »

one of the initial comments made in reply to the numerous posts from newbie LL is that they are now running a business and should adopt a business philosophy

I therefore think its hypocritical of people on here to criticise the Wilsons for having a clear business strategy which defines their target market and responds to change based on business performance data.

They are not social services and do not "have" to take people who are not financially self sufficient

Except that (rightly) we have anti-discrimination laws in this country, and a business is not free to accept or reject paying customers on an arbitrary basis. For example, the owners of a bed-and-breakfast business were not permitted to decline the business of a gay couple...

A landlord has every right to decline to let a property to someone whom they believe may be unable to pay the rent, for example a person who would rely on LHA. However, once a person is already a tenant and has demonstrated their ability to make rent payments, the fact that they receive benefit should not have any bearing on the question of their continued tenancy. Of course, if they start missing rent payments then the situation changes.