Benefits agency told me tenant they will only help her if the landlord evicts them

justwhat

BikingBud said:

.

And similarly private landlords should not expect the taxpayers fund their private pension plan for no effort! 

If it's a business, be professional and treat it like one or sell up and move on!

uhh there are many methods of accumulating money   with next to no effort. Then investing it in a private pension.  Would you prefer no investment in a private pension then just living off the state, Because that would be  tax payer funding. 

Also i am suggesting the OP does not rent to people that do not pass  affordability test. So i am actually agreeing with everything you have said lol.(so no "tax payer funding" as you put it )

Evicting an unreasonable tenant  is being professional. lol

davilown

justwhat said:

BikingBud said:

.

And similarly private landlords should not expect the taxpayers fund their private pension plan for no effort! 

If it's a business, be professional and treat it like one or sell up and move on!

uhh there are many methods of accumulating money   with next to no effort. Then investing it in a private pension.  Would you prefer no investment in a private pension then just living off the state, Because that would be  tax payer funding. 

Also i am suggesting the OP does not rent to people that do not pass  affordability test. So i am actually agreeing with everything you have said lol.(so no "tax payer funding" as you put it )

Evicting an unreasonable tenant  is being professional. lol

But so far there is little evidence to show the tenant is being unreasonable- rent paid on time and a phone call a month. If the LL is unemployed, surely they have plenty of time to go to the property and look at the ‘problem’.

Half an hour of their time a month is hardly unreasonable considering the money they are receiving.

As before, this LL needs to decide if that half an hour is worth their time.  If they do, then they need to think about having a tenant that pays to a new potentially unknown tenant who may pass affordability tests but then lose their job and not pay the rent till they’re evicted via court.

justwhat

davilown said:

justwhat said:

BikingBud said:

.

And similarly private landlords should not expect the taxpayers fund their private pension plan for no effort! 

If it's a business, be professional and treat it like one or sell up and move on!

uhh there are many methods of accumulating money   with next to no effort. Then investing it in a private pension.  Would you prefer no investment in a private pension then just living off the state, Because that would be  tax payer funding. 

Also i am suggesting the OP does not rent to people that do not pass  affordability test. So i am actually agreeing with everything you have said lol.(so no "tax payer funding" as you put it )

Evicting an unreasonable tenant  is being professional. lol

But so far there is little evidence to show the tenant is being unreasonable- rent paid on time and a phone call a month. If the LL is unemployed, surely they have plenty of time to go to the property and look at the ‘problem’.
 

Half an hour of their time a month is hardly unreasonable considering the money they are receiving.

As before, this LL needs to decide if that half an hour is worth their time.  If they do, then they need to think about having a tenant that pays to a new potentially unknown tenant who may pass affordability tests but then lose their job and not pay the rent till they’re evicted via court.

A call every month for things that are petty or non existent eg electrical fault is unreasonable (OP said they got a spark out and no fault was found) . The money received or amount is irrelevant.  Also the LL's employment status or what he does in his free time is not a consideration either.

Affordability test is used in many areas for credit LL's have started to use this method more due to the higher risk in certain situations. Affordability test may also take into consideration the tenant has assets or has more of a potential of having assets. So if a court issue arises you have a chance of getting the money back.  

Some LL's are now asking for guarantors if the tenant does not tick all the boxes for affordability.

All this has been brought about due to the attitudes from the government/legislation and the fact more tenants play the system . And far too many people think LL's are idle rich.(or have private pensions lol) , This then gives some people an excuse to rip off LL's.

The hard line approach that the "market" is taking towards Tenants is justified  Considering the burden that is being placed on private LL's.

lookstraightahead

justwhat said:

davilown said:

justwhat said:

BikingBud said:

.

And similarly private landlords should not expect the taxpayers fund their private pension plan for no effort! 

If it's a business, be professional and treat it like one or sell up and move on!

uhh there are many methods of accumulating money   with next to no effort. Then investing it in a private pension.  Would you prefer no investment in a private pension then just living off the state, Because that would be  tax payer funding. 

Also i am suggesting the OP does not rent to people that do not pass  affordability test. So i am actually agreeing with everything you have said lol.(so no "tax payer funding" as you put it )

Evicting an unreasonable tenant  is being professional. lol

But so far there is little evidence to show the tenant is being unreasonable- rent paid on time and a phone call a month. If the LL is unemployed, surely they have plenty of time to go to the property and look at the ‘problem’.
 

Half an hour of their time a month is hardly unreasonable considering the money they are receiving.

As before, this LL needs to decide if that half an hour is worth their time.  If they do, then they need to think about having a tenant that pays to a new potentially unknown tenant who may pass affordability tests but then lose their job and not pay the rent till they’re evicted via court.

A call every month for things that are petty or non existent eg electrical fault is unreasonable (OP said they got a spark out and no fault was found) . The money received or amount is irrelevant.  Also the LL's employment status or what he does in his free time is not a consideration either.

Affordability test is used in many areas for credit LL's have started to use this method more due to the higher risk in certain situations. Affordability test may also take into consideration the tenant has assets or has more of a potential of having assets. So if a court issue arises you have a chance of getting the money back.  

Some LL's are now asking for guarantors if the tenant does not tick all the boxes for affordability.

All this has been brought about due to the attitudes from the government/legislation and the fact more tenants play the system . And far too many people think LL's are idle rich.(or have private pensions lol) , This then gives some people an excuse to rip off LL's.

The hard line approach that the "market" is taking towards Tenants is justified  Considering the burden that is being placed on private LL's.

Honestly once a month is not a lot. In the house that I've just bought I have had an electrician out twice, British Gas out twice, and a plumber round. That's 5 call ours in three months. Oh and a wasps nest. And that's in my house, for me. 
A tenant is not allowed to fix their own things if there is a chance it might go wrong - if you are a good LL you know that already. 

A LL or agent also bothers a tenant on a regular basis for legal checks, for checking the property isn't in disrepair etc. 

If a LL is relying on rental income without putting some aside they should not be a landlord (I so wish they should have a qualification in being one). A tenant is not a silent cash cow.
irrespective of politics, no one has to be a landlord. tenants play the system, but so do landlords, especially accidental ones who have absolutely no idea how to be one. 

Being a landlord is a job. Being a landlord has huge responsibilities. Tenants are customers - some are good some are bad. However, they're not there to be quiet and just hand over their cash.

davilown

@lookstraightahead eloquently put!

MaryNB

p00hsticks said:

ftsos said:

When I met her, she came to view, she came across as helpless, I felt bad for her. She had never rented (according to her), and she recently found her self in this situation of divorce and young child.

And there's the nub of it.

She's not used to fending for herself, and when things go wrong she is now calling you to do all the things she would have expected her husband to deal with when she was married.....

My mother's friend died suddenly, left behind a young family. We were shocked at how dependent his wife was. She had never put petrol in the car or put credit on a phone. She really struggled. 

lookstraightahead said:

justwhat said:

davilown said:

justwhat said:

BikingBud said:

.

And similarly private landlords should not expect the taxpayers fund their private pension plan for no effort! 

If it's a business, be professional and treat it like one or sell up and move on!

uhh there are many methods of accumulating money   with next to no effort. Then investing it in a private pension.  Would you prefer no investment in a private pension then just living off the state, Because that would be  tax payer funding. 

Also i am suggesting the OP does not rent to people that do not pass  affordability test. So i am actually agreeing with everything you have said lol.(so no "tax payer funding" as you put it )

Evicting an unreasonable tenant  is being professional. lol

But so far there is little evidence to show the tenant is being unreasonable- rent paid on time and a phone call a month. If the LL is unemployed, surely they have plenty of time to go to the property and look at the ‘problem’.
 

Half an hour of their time a month is hardly unreasonable considering the money they are receiving.

As before, this LL needs to decide if that half an hour is worth their time.  If they do, then they need to think about having a tenant that pays to a new potentially unknown tenant who may pass affordability tests but then lose their job and not pay the rent till they’re evicted via court.

A call every month for things that are petty or non existent eg electrical fault is unreasonable (OP said they got a spark out and no fault was found) . The money received or amount is irrelevant.  Also the LL's employment status or what he does in his free time is not a consideration either.

Affordability test is used in many areas for credit LL's have started to use this method more due to the higher risk in certain situations. Affordability test may also take into consideration the tenant has assets or has more of a potential of having assets. So if a court issue arises you have a chance of getting the money back.  

Some LL's are now asking for guarantors if the tenant does not tick all the boxes for affordability.

All this has been brought about due to the attitudes from the government/legislation and the fact more tenants play the system . And far too many people think LL's are idle rich.(or have private pensions lol) , This then gives some people an excuse to rip off LL's.

The hard line approach that the "market" is taking towards Tenants is justified  Considering the burden that is being placed on private LL's.

Honestly once a month is not a lot. In the house that I've just bought I have had an electrician out twice, British Gas out twice, and a plumber round. That's 5 call ours in three months. Oh and a wasps nest. And that's in my house, for me. 
A tenant is not allowed to fix their own things if there is a chance it might go wrong - if you are a good LL you know that already. 

A LL or agent also bothers a tenant on a regular basis for legal checks, for checking the property isn't in disrepair etc. 

If a LL is relying on rental income without putting some aside they should not be a landlord (I so wish they should have a qualification in being one). A tenant is not a silent cash cow.
irrespective of politics, no one has to be a landlord. tenants play the system, but so do landlords, especially accidental ones who have absolutely no idea how to be one. 

Being a landlord is a job. Being a landlord has huge responsibilities. Tenants are customers - some are good some are bad. However, they're not there to be quiet and just hand over their cash.

I think OP was right when they suggested that may they've just been lucky with other tenants. Even with genuine issues I've generally had to call the landlord or agency a few times a year.  The only issue with the tenant being on benefits is that it's harder to evict. None of the housemates I had were on benefits were there were plenty of nonsense calls to the agencies and landlords, to quote my father "some people just don't know how to live in a house". 

One housemate kept calling the landlord about a leaking toilet, even after I pointed out that the water on the floor was around the perimeter of the room, not under the toilet bowl. When people were cooking in the kitchen next to the bathroom, the steam would condense on the bathroom wall tiles and drip down the floor.

I had another housemate called the agency repeatedly about the boiler being faulty because she couldn't get hot water in her shower. I told her since all the taps and the other shower were fine, it couldn't be the boiler. She ignored me. Eventually I had a look at her shower. Limescale build up made the dial a bit stiff, it just wasn't turned up high enough. 
I knew this housemate before we moved in together and in her old place she was repeatedly complaining to the agency about the flat having a musty smell, it was one of the reasons she moved out. When we moved in together we had the same problem and I realised it was because she was leaving her clothes in the washing machine too long and when she left them out to dry they stank up the place.

I had another housemate call the letting agent because he couldn't open the window. The previous occupant had just moved out and I had been in the room because she left the window open. There was nothing wrong with the mechanism, it was just a bit old. Agency sent a guy, he did some fake drilling and "fixed it". I never got on with that new housemate, he was very fussy about everything being clean but wouldn't do any cleaning himself, and was completely useless around the flat. I got the impression he was a mother's boy who had everything done for him.

lookstraightahead said:

canaldumidi said:

The trouble with discussing whether the tenant is/isn't being unreasonable, has a medical condition, etc, is that the OP has not yet clarified whether the monthly calls relate to genuine issues or not.

For all we know, the property is run-down, the roof leaks, the boiler is past its use-by date etc etc.

So what exactly were the last 4 or 5 'issues' raised? Light bulb needs changing or roof tile needs replacing?

Agreed.

your comment about the light bulb reminded me of when I was a tenant back in the day. The neighbours said that the previous tenants had called the landlord out for everything, even lightbulbs (neighbour was friends with the landlord).  As tenants, we kept having lightbulbs go and found out via an electrician that the electrics were really bad.

I would like to know what the issues are as well. 

I also had a similar problem with lightbulbs in the last houseshare I was in. I'm convinced the electrics were to blame for me having to change the lightbulbs every few months (in addition to housemates stealing the ones in common areas when the bulbs in their bedrooms went). I moved out in the middle of winter just as the lighting circuit in the basement (where the bathroom and three bedrooms were) failed. We had to rely on lamps and torches. They had a least three visits from an electrician who found an issue, fixed it, only for the lights to go again a few days later. Last I heard it took over a month to get it sorted.

saajan_12

BikingBud said:

justwhat said:

If your tenant is wanting to move out via eviction route then they may stop paying rent. 

I would ignore the phone calls and only repair anything there is a legal requirement to do. Start eviction now or start it when the rent dries up..

Then i would not rent to DHSS(Popcorn). Perfectly legal to do an affordability test on prospective tenants. 

Private LL's  should NOT be thought of as charities or  social housing providers.

And similarly private landlords should not expect the taxpayers fund their private pension plan for no effort! 

If it's a business, be professional and treat it like one or sell up and move on!

How is this any different from your local supermarket's customers paying with benefit money (ie from taxpayers)? Or the utility company's customers? Or the airline's? Or the small clothes stall's? etc etc

Benefits are there to pay for your living expenses, which includes your accommodation. Just like the person selling your veg, the person providing you with a roof should be paid for their goods & services.. wherever that comes from. 

Yes the LL has to put in the effort for any tenant. But that's the requisite effort to reasonably maintain a property, not handhold you through life. At the shop its reasonable to complain if something you purchase is defective etc. Its not reasonable to bug the shopkeeper until they come home and cook the food for you.   

london21

Not all benefit or private tenants are good or bad. 
Good that she is at least paying rent. 
Assess the repairs if they are genuine or excessive. 
You can start the eviction  process but does take some time. 

chanz4

you cant refuse dss now its ilegal to discriminate against taking it

theartfullodger

I'm in receipt of 6 benefits (old): Also a landlord.  So that means you won't do business with me??

About 50% of adults are in receipt of one benefit or another - IMHO don't cut your marketplace in half!