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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

From the article.....

"Rents have gone north, and benefit levels south," he said. "The gap is such that I have taken the decision to withdraw from taking tenants on housing benefit.

From what I can gather just about all other landlords have done the same.

Our situation is that not one of our working tenants is in arrears – all those in arrears are on housing benefit."

A key factor for Wilson and other landlords is that it is impossible to obtain rent guarantee insurance for a tenant on housing benefit. This type of insurance is sold to landlords and is designed to cover the rent if the tenant stops paying for any reason.

It's a private business, not a housing charity?

A lot of people on here cheered on the changes to benefits as they thought it would make rents fall.

What it's actually done is make benefits claimants unviable to rent to.

And there is no shortage of working people ready to move in to the places they vacate...

And he's not the only landlord thinking the same way....

Wilson is not the first large-scale landlord to raise concerns about low-income tenants. Last month Kevin Green, a landlord with more than 700 properties in Wales, said he may stop letting to people on welfare.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tbs624 wrote: »

Along with those Ts who may not be paying their rent in full or on time, there will undoubtedly be Ts who have never reneged on their tenancy agreements

Some people on here are always saying it's right and proper that people who fit certain risk profiles (regardless of whether or not they've actually defaulted themselves) should be discriminated against and excluded from getting mortgages.

As banks (largely propped up by taxpayers money) have to manage risk.

Don't landlords with mortgages form those same banks then have a similar obligation to manage the risk in their business?

In other words, if it's OK to say a single mother on benefits shouldn't get a mortgage from a bank....

Why would you want a landlord to get a mortgage which relies on that same single mother on benefits paying it?

Brallaqueen

Is this a sort of social engineering from the Govt perspective?
Make it less appealing to rent to claimants > limit private sector housing options > severely limit social housing via RTB > make it less favourable to be on benefits as a lifestyle option

mrginge

Voyager2002 wrote: »

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...

Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Being on housing benefit is not.

outofmoney

We all know there is an extreme shortage of social housing. Those, like myself, who have no hope of ever being housed rely on private rental. But it is getting to the point that those receiving HB will only be able to afford, and get accepted for the damp, half derelict and homes in 'no go' areas. Is that really fair?

Not everyone who receives full LHA is on benefits because they are lazy or refuse to work. Not everyone on benefits will be bad tenants or be hit and miss with rent.

Something needs to be done!

As for the people in the OP, if they decide against HB that is one thing but to turf out tenants who have been reliable is bang out of order.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

outofmoney wrote: »

We all know there is an extreme shortage of social housing.

There is an extreme shortage of all housing.

Not just social.

Brallaqueen

outofmoney wrote: »

We all know there is an extreme shortage of social housing. Those, like myself, who have no hope of ever being housed rely on private rental. But it is getting to the point that those receiving HB will only be able to afford, and get accepted for the damp, half derelict and homes in 'no go' areas. Is that really fair?

Why wouldn't it be fair? If a person feels they deserve better, that doesn't automatically make it the case.

I would however, like to see much more family involvement in supporting anyone affected by the lack of social housing, from being a guarantor (if they will not guarantee their own, that's a bad sign to any LL) to luckier/wealthier/healthier members taking in those that need help.

outofmoney

Brallaqueen wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be fair? If a person feels they deserve better, that doesn't automatically make it the case.

Are you really saying that someone, for whatever reason, that relies on HB, can only live in the crummiest of properties?

And as much as the idea of family involvement is great, not everyone has family earning that much. We certainly don't. So for us, we are stuck in a house way too small with two disabled children. Our only chance of a larger house would be to move to one where we would be scraping mould of the walls daily and fear our lives each time we left the house .... but apparently that is all we should expect since we have lowered ourselves to receive HB according to yourself!

Brallaqueen

outofmoney wrote: »

Are you really saying that someone, for whatever reason, that relies on HB, can only live in the crummiest of properties?

And as much as the idea of family involvement is great, not everyone has family earning that much. We certainly don't. So for us, we are stuck in a house way too small with two disabled children. Our only chance of a larger house would be to move to one where we would be scraping mould of the walls daily and fear our lives each time we left the house .... but apparently that is all we should expect since we have lowered ourselves to receive HB according to yourself!

You can live wherever you can afford to. It's not a value judgement.
You did not lower yourself, because you are not your financial circumstances.
Being rejected on the basis of them is not a rejection of you as a person.
It is a rejection of the risk your circumstances pose, therefore fewer people are going to accommodate that risk.
I'm sorry you take offense to that.

In general terms, if this persists then the landlords who end up taking on HB claimants are probably going to be those at either end of the spectrum - the dyed in the wool professionals who have contingency plans in place and a margin for error, and the Rachmanesque.

I do believe that family should take on a much greater role in supporting people than the state should. Whether that be living together and sharing resources, living apart and supporting financially, whatever it takes.

My tenses are all messed up, sorry

Callie22

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why would you want a landlord to get a mortgage which relies on that same single mother on benefits paying it?

But isn't that what they were doing? Lots of landlords, the Wilsons included, have built up massive property portfolios based on the fact that they have been able to demand a certain level of rent because HB/LHA was paid at a certain level. So they have, in effect, been relying on that 'single mother on benefits' to prop up their business model, albeit via a substantial government subsidy. It's somewhat hypocritical now to throw out the same people upon whom they built their 'empire', especially when many of them haven't been defaulting on their rent - not to mention short-sighted, as I don't imagine that the majority of the Wilson's properties are the sort that will be selected by anyone who is able to exercise choice when picking a property to rent. Hopefully they'll experience some nice long voids.