Paying 9 Months Rent Upfront via Family Loan — Will UC Housing Element Still Be Paid?

HillStreetBlues

born_again said:

Aside from that Genuine question. If anyone paid upfront for X months rental. How would that work in terms of UC Housing Element be paid. As they are not paying anything for the 1st X months?

It's paid the same way as normal just the claimant dose have to pass it on to the LL as already been paid. 

Newcad

born_again said:

I thought that the policy " because most landlords and estate agents refuse tenants whose income is partly from benefits." had been banned under the equality law?

Aside from that Genuine question. If anyone paid upfront for X months rental. How would that work in terms of UC Housing Element be paid. As they are not paying anything for the 1st X months?

Nope it is currently quite leagal to state that in adverts, claiming benefits is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

You couldn't advertise 'No Disabled' that would be against EA10, but advertising 'No Benefits Clamants' is OK in English law as it stands.

The new Renters Rights Bill will ban landlords/agent from having 'No benefits' as a blanket policy and says that they should consider each application on it's own merits, but it isn't law yet.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-the-renters-rights-bill/guide-to-the-renters-rights-bill#prohibiting-rental-discrimination
Note though that (unless the bill itself has changed since last time I looked) it will ban then from having 'No Benefits' as a blanket policy but nothing stops a LL/agent from using it to filter applications anyway - How would you prove otherwise? If you got turned down for a property they can just say you didn't pass their affordability criteria.

How would that work in terms of UC Housing Element be paid.

We are talking about Private Rentals here, so UC Housing Element will pay either the applicable LHA rate (or the actual rent if lower than LHA) for the months that the tenent is liable to pay rent.
It doesn't matter if the tenant pays the LL each month, all at once, in advance or in arrrears, or never pays the LL at all, UC-HE is still paid for each month that the tenant is liable to pay rent.

HillStreetBlues

Grumpy_chap said:

As a LL myself, can anyone explain to me in simple, plain, easy to understand, small words why "no benefits" would be a meaningful filter?
It is a mind-set I do not understand - have I missed something obvious and leaving myself exposed to unnecessary risk?

One issue is that for private rental is that I expect most will need a top-up as the LHA doesn't cover the full cost.
With the current climate of all parties saying they want to slash the benefit bill, that feeds onto the perceived risk of letting to a person on benefits.

bird82

Actively rejecting applicants from those receiving benefits has been banned under the Equality Act. However only for letting agents, and they get around this by judging eligibility based on “income from wages” only. So that will automatically filter out most applicants who receive UC top ups or disability benefits. Even if you can prove your whole household income meets their threshold, they want it ALL from wages only. It doesn’t make any sense, as benefit income is as reliable (maybe even more so) than wages from a job you can lose at any time for whatever reason! So it is class bias and it’s messed up, also pretty stupid if you are trying make fairly easy money as a landlord - as people have said above. 

Private landlords can still say no DSS as far as I am aware, they can have any eligibility criteria they want. 

Newcad

bird82 said:

Actively rejecting applicants from those receiving benefits has been banned under the Equality Act. 

.

Private landlords can still say no DSS as far as I am aware, they can have any eligibility criteria they want. 

It is not banned under the equality act, (you actually say it yourself), it is proposed to be banned under the renters reform bill. (but even then will have no enforcement unless someone sues a LL for doing it).

PS. You only have to read some of the posts here to be aware that benefits payments can be suspended or stopped for little or no real reason.

PPS. Being a landlord (properly) isn't 'an easy job' that's why many prefer to pay agents to do it for them.

Class Bias works both ways -
Depending on a biased point of view: all tenants are lazy proles, or all landlords are lazy fat-cats.
Of course neither point of view is correct.

subjecttocontract

Grumpy_chap said:

Newcad said:

the 'no-benefits' landlord is a dying breed.

As a LL myself, can anyone explain to me in simple, plain, easy to understand, small words why "no benefits" would be a meaningful filter?
It is a mind-set I do not understand - have I missed something obvious and leaving myself exposed to unnecessary risk?

I'll make an attempt at explaining the situation.

* My lettings agent provides rent guarantee insurance to landlords but it doesn't cover tenants in receipt of benefits. That seems to make it a pretty meaningful filter.

* Usually applicants in receipt of benefits are unable to provide a home owning guarantor.

I always want one or the other.