BTL for girlfriend on LHA?

Errata

Find her a better rental if the one she's living in is a pigpen, and you love her.

densol_2

Great plan !!!

Tax payer pays your mortgage !
She continues to reap in benefits as a single mum
She gets single person council tax credit
You go stay there when you want ( ooooh but you don't " reside" there )

Makes me glad to be be British !

harrys_dad

The very fact you are asking this question on here OP and would clearly have no intention of becoming a landlord unless you were trying to house your GF, makes it very clear this is a contrived tenancy and should not be supported by state benefits.

Cautious_Optimist

BigAunty wrote: »

Read the Shelter link that I provided. It covers how partners are classed.

Thanks for the link, but I couldn't find any definition of partner on that site.

Cautious_Optimist

RAS wrote: »

It's a fuzzy line between; it is possible to live in the same house and not be partners and to be partners when living in different houses.

Do you spend all your free time together, shop as a single household, cook and eat together, economise on the laundry by doing it together? How are the utilities paid?

If you have an alternative address where you actually do all those things most of the time then it is only a problem if some neighbour reports her. If actually you do all those things jointly and go home to sleep most nights, you are probably partners.

Based on these things, I would say I am NOT her ''partner''.
GF only stays with me at weekends usually.
All our finances (bills etc) are completely separate.
I have my own house and the majority of the time I live there, not with my GF.

Cautious_Optimist

densol wrote: »

You go stay there when you want ( ooooh but you don't " reside" there )

I don't plan to reside there. I have my own house.
The reality is that we are ''dating'', but she is not my ''partner''.


How would this be different to a LL, who started to ''date'' one of his current tenants?
As far as I can ascertain, the only difference is one of initial intent (to ''contrive'' a tenancy). The end state would be the same.


And as far as cost to the state is concerned, they will be paying out her rent to a private LL, whether that is me, or someone else.
Us ''dating'' does not increase state costs.


In fact, there should (hopefully) be a reduction in cost to the state, because the plan is to enable my GF to start work...

densol_2

Cautious_Optimist wrote: »

I don't plan to reside there. I have my own house.
The reality is that we are ''dating'', but she is not my ''partner''.


How would this be different to a LL, who started to ''date'' one of his current tenants?
As far as I can ascertain, the only difference is one of initial intent (to ''contrive'' a tenancy). The end state would be the same.


And as far as cost to the state is concerned, they will be paying out her rent to a private LL, whether that is me, or someone else.
Us ''dating'' does not increase state costs.


In fact, there should (hopefully) be a reduction in cost to the state, because the plan is to enable my GF to start work...

Oh please ! Most people who find love move in together and give up the joy of the benefits ! Contrived isn't a big enough word on this tenancy plan. Best save the arguments for HB / CT/ HMRC and benefits office officers ! On MSE - we see these far fetched schemes every day ...... And so do the above officers - good luck

Cautious_Optimist

harrys_dad wrote: »

The very fact you are asking this question on here OP and would clearly have no intention of becoming a landlord unless you were trying to house your GF, makes it very clear this is a contrived tenancy and should not be supported by state benefits.

I can see your point.
But if I had a colleague or friend, who I thought would make a good tenant, I may do the same thing.


Would it be a ''contrived'' tenancy if I did the same thing for a friend or colleague?


One of the main reasons I wouldn't become a LL, is because I am wary of problem tenants.


Similarly, I would not buy a house that needed renovation, unless I knew a builder that I trusted.


But right now, I can see LHA going to a useless LL and I know that I could do a better job...

RAS

Cautious_Optimist wrote: »

Would it be a ''contrived'' tenancy if I did the same thing for a friend or colleague?

Yes, it would.

Cautious_Optimist

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Assuming you manage to pull this off and your girlfriend settles into your property, I'd be willing to bet that a pregnancy is on the cards a lot sooner than you think.

That is a good point.
That would make me totally ineligible to be her LL.
In that circumstance, I would obviously marry her.
But at this point, we are way off that scenario.
We haven't been together long and my work situation is uncertain.


GF is younger than me and having recently got divorced, isn't too keen to get married so soon.


She wants to go to college / work really.


What would happen if a LL got his existing LHA tenant pregnant, I wonder?


It must happen. Would the council stop her LHA?