Homeless Dilemma. Help.

duchy

If you are in London and end up moving to another part of London and your child's father can't be bothered travelling that little bit longer to see their own child - then that is his loss and even if you hadn't moved he'd have eventually found another excuse. Many parents travel several hours to see their kids weekly.

A far bigger concern is managing childcare and work if you are housed by the council some distance from your work and child's present school (assuming your child isn't enrolled in the same school you work in).

London rentals are probably the least stable and the hardest for DSS tenants and from that viewpoint in your situation I think I'd be looking at social housing as an ideal in the longer term but it could cause you bigger problems in the short term depending on where you are housed.

Only you can decide if the longer term or the short term takes priority.

bloolagoon

Rollingstart wrote: »

That in a sense is even worse, as they're normally large companies.

The point about insurance is a bit moot though as unlike car insurance, it's not mandatory.

Or LL could charge more. So if not on benefits £100 a week or £125 a week if you are to cover the additionsl costs/premiums/risks etc.

Think that is more discriminatory.

LL do have to have insurance as mandatory if they don't own the property, it's a condition of a lender.

BigAunty

NYM wrote: »

BigAunty hasn't mis-remembered. You did claim that you lived in an .... ''expensive' area in London...' albeit in a '..poorer part..' and in another, you stated that your borough has the cheapest CT in the country. I think it would be easy to guess your location.

Clearly rents in that area are astronomically high. You need to be realistic regarding social housing.

If you can find a LL willing to offer you a place in an area you would like to live it might be the best option open to you.

I found a historic post from the OP who reported she lived in zone 3. For some reason i wrongly thought she was in maida vale but now i realise i muddled her with a newspaper article.

BigAunty

Murphybear wrote: »

When the landlords say "no DSS" what they really mean is "no unemployed", there is quite a difference. With so many people looking for rentals they can afford to be choosy especially if the property is half decent with affordable rent.

But it can equally mean 'no benefit claimants accepted, only those who can cover the rent solely by employment income'

silvercar

BigAunty wrote: »

But it can equally mean 'no benefit claimants accepted, only those who can cover the rent solely by employment income'

No DSS is such an outdated term. If someone is working and receives any of:

working tax credit
child tax credit
help with child care
council tax benefit

are these benefits that rule out a private "no DSS" letting?

Or is the "no DSS" rule restricted to:

housing benefit/ LHA
Income support.

FWIW if you are employed, is it really necessary to tell a landlord that you claim HB? As long as you are able to pay the rent on time each month, is it really the landlord's concern which benefit is supplementing your income?

Stevie_Palimo

silvercar wrote: »

No DSS is such an outdated term. If someone is working and receives any of:

working tax credit
child tax credit
help with child care
council tax benefit

are these benefits that rule out a private "no DSS" letting?

Or is the "no DSS" rule restricted to:

housing benefit/ LHA
Income support.

FWIW if you are employed, is it really necessary to tell a landlord that you claim HB? As long as you are able to pay the rent on time each month, is it really the landlord's concern which benefit is supplementing your income?

It would depend on how the rent is being paid as I have seen a number of landlords not want a benefit claimant in the property they own due to not declaring the rent taken, Yes it is to do with insurance as well but for the small part it is landlords not wanting to wait the initial set up stage for money to be paid.

bloolagoon

silvercar wrote: »

No DSS is such an outdated term. If someone is working and receives any of:

working tax credit
child tax credit
help with child care
council tax benefit

are these benefits that rule out a private "no DSS" letting?

Or is the "no DSS" rule restricted to:

housing benefit/ LHA
Income support.

FWIW if you are employed, is it really necessary to tell a landlord that you claim HB? As long as you are able to pay the rent on time each month, is it really the landlord's concern which benefit is supplementing your income?

LL usually ask for payslips and or bank statements. It's going to be clear from those that you aren't paying your way without benefits.

That said certainly in high rental areas we need to get over the DSS stigma. Many need to claim it, professionals included at times. £300 a week for a 2 bed is not achievable on even a decent salary after tax and pensions etc.

silvercar

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

It would depend on how the rent is being paid as I have seen a number of landlords not want a benefit claimant in the property they own due to not declaring the rent taken, Yes it is to do with insurance as well but for the small part it is landlords not wanting to wait the initial set up stage for money to be paid.

I was expecting that the tenant would be paying the rent as agreed in the rent contract (AST) and managing their income streams (pay, benefits, child support etc) themselves. So the landlord doesn't suffer in any financial way from agreeing to a tenant in receipt of benefit.

BigAunty

silvercar wrote: »

No DSS is such an outdated term. If someone is working and receives any of:

working tax credit
child tax credit
help with child care
council tax benefit

are these benefits that rule out a private "no DSS" ?

As per my previous post, it does not have a specific meaning but generally means 'no benefit claimants'. Didnt the DSS used to issue most or all benefits before the HMRC and local council became responsible?

BigAunty

silvercar wrote: »

I was expecting that the tenant would be paying the rent as agreed in the rent contract (AST) and managing their income streams (pay, benefits, child support etc) themselves. So the landlord doesn't suffer in any financial way from agreeing to a tenant in receipt of benefit.

Except those on low incomes are a higher risk and claimants are subject to huge no notice cuts in benefits, including the change to the percentile to calculate LHA, cap on number of bedrooms, max Upper lha cap, age raise from 25 to 35 for 1 bed rate,overall benefit cap of £500 a week for workless households, etc etc