Homeless Dilemma. Help.

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

NYM

Could it not just be a simple thing such as affordability ?

Most LL's would like to be assured that their tenants are able to service their rent and utilities without relying on someone else. It's just a sensible business decision. If a tenant doesn't need to rely on top-up benefits, they are less likely to 'dip into' the rent to pay for other things.

Local Authorities do have a list of private LL's that are willing to take on a tenant that receives HB/LHA. If social housing isn't readily available, then the List is something that should be considered before trawling through Letting Agents lists.

silvercar

Most LL's would like to be assured that their tenants are able to service their rent and utilities without relying on someone else.

Unless you have a large amount of savings, most renters are at risk of losing their job and so rely on their work to be able to afford the rent. Benefit claimants at least know that their provider isn't going to go bust!

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

I accept all that, but there is notice, these things are announced way in advance of implementation and you really would need to live with your head in the sand to not know that cuts were coming.

Rollingstart

bloolagoon wrote: »

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.

They have to have insurance yes but not that kind of insurance. And if it's a condition of a lender, as again not all lenders require that.

In short, there's nothing mandatory about excluding people on housing benefit from renting your flat.

[Deleted User]

An awful lot of councils do NOT have lists of LL's who accept those in receipt of LHA.., and in boroughs where rents are high, and properties in high demand (more tenants than properties) the LL's who accept LHA claimants are far and few between. Take it from one who knows. This is why the OP has made the post.

MissMoneypenny

Deleted_User wrote: »

So what am I supposed to do if the private landlords aren't accepting me?

Move outside London. Landlords in London can choose those in work as tenants because lots of people in London don't claim benefits.

silvercar

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Move outside London. Landlords in London can choose those in work as tenants because lots of people in London don't claim benefits.

Not always possible if your work and/or support network is where you live.

But I agree for some people the need to find affordable homes means considering areas where rent is cheaper.

Rollingstart

silvercar wrote: »

Not always possible if your work and/or support network is where you live.

But I agree for some people the need to find affordable homes means considering areas where rent is cheaper.

Not the OP given her full time job is in London. There's something very wrong with London if there's lots of full time workers having to claim housing benefit.

If all these people moved out, who wouod do these lower paid jobs, some of which help to provide essential services to Londoners?

Clearly the solution to this problem is not for people to move out of London.

[Deleted User]

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Move outside London. Landlords in London can choose those in work as tenants because lots of people in London don't claim benefits.

Joking right?
I work full time thanks.
Lots of people in London DO claim benefits.

[Deleted User]

duchy wrote: »

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.

Do you have children? Is not only his loss. Is my daughter's loss too.
He works in catering, works lots of evenings, usually early start and late finish. It is 8am-10pm shifts most of the time. Sometimes 2pm-10pm, sometimes 8am-4pm. Lots of weekends too. But it is random shifts on rota basis, not 2 weeks are the same.
He is living close enough at the moment and my daughter see him only 2 days a week with one sleep over.