Existing tenant is applying for Housing Benefit...

Running_Horse

Old_No.7 wrote: »

If she was the only person in the house, I wouldn't have ever brought it up! But she isn't, and there's where the dilemma came in. The chucking out would relate more to her behaviour

Are you Big Brother or a Relate counsellor? Do you intervene in all your tenants' personal relationships, and evict those who don't get on? What a bizarre attitude.

Old_No.7

Ebany, I completely agree with you, and my mum has always had housing benefit (or the Dutch equivalent anyway) whenever she needed it. No stigma, no trouble, just a government (dare I say, system) that understands that these things can happen, and someone temporarily needs a bit of help.

Unfortunately though, IF a tenant being on HB does indeed invalidate my insurance (and still not sure that it does, am getting conflicting advice), than surely I would be negligent towards all concerned if I was aware of it and hadn't changed the policy? I'm trying to be responsible here, not a moneygrabbing, prejudiced life wrecker, as some seem to think.

I think your Keep Shtumm (sp?) approach is the best, and I really wish she'd never told me!

payless

consent to let on a multi occupied non-AST tenancy ?

Old_No.7

Haha, Running Horse, you're right, I feel like their mother sometimes! I am trying to stay out of it, but it's not as easy as you might think when they phone up crying. Anyway, I've only got these 3 tenants, luckily, as it's all I can cope with. Am really working hard on not getting involved now: learning rapidly that there is never just one person at fault in these cases. So I'm not evicting anyone at present, despite repeat requests as it's almost impossible to decide who needs to go. So staying out is the best thing, I agree: if only they were as adult as you. )

Tori_Bellatrix

The Landlord may only be made aware of a HB claim if the tenant gives his authorisation for the local authority to contact them - Or the LL needs to be paid directly. If a tenant has all the correct documentation and wishes to be paid then it's possible that the LL may not know.

Don't forget that the rules for HB changes in April this year to Local Housing Allowance and the preference will be to pay the tenant direct (amongst other things)

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/lha/

HugoSP

Old_No.7 wrote: »

Unfortunately though, IF a tenant being on HB does indeed invalidate my insurance (and still not sure that it does, am getting conflicting advice), than surely I would be negligent towards all concerned if I was aware of it and hadn't changed the policy? I'm trying to be responsible here, not a moneygrabbing, prejudiced life wrecker, as some seem to think.

You're quite right you are getting conflicting advice. The only way to know for sure is to check your policy or contact your insurers.

With regard to her claiming HB, If she put the claim in NOW and is then gainfully employed in a month or two, then SHE has TWO month's HB that she is entitled to, even if it did take a long time for her to receive it. IF she does not then she will be worse off by that amount.

I don't know what the rent is but this could be worth some £250 to her over 2 months, so I would advise that she doesn't delay.

adouglasmhor

custardy wrote: »

not so.i was on benifits for a couple of months and just supplied my lease documents and had the money paid direct to me.
this was paid via DD as usual to my landlord from my account.
i was the same person before,during and after recieving HB

sorry I should have said if it is being paid direct to landlord - sorry.

Nearly_Legal

Tiglet wrote: »

Several posters have responded on the basis that these people have ASTs. They don't, as tenancies only apply to separate addresses, not to rooms in a house. This means that many of the drawbacks of accepting tenants on HB do not apply as you don't have to rely on section8 / section21 if you want them to leave.

Oh dear. If the landlord doesn't live in the property, the basic rule is as follows: Is there exclusive possession of a defined space - like a room? Is there rent on a periodic basis? Then it is a tenancy. Street v Mountford. And the default is that it is an AST. There is no requirement that an AST is for a separate address, none at all. And it doesn't matter that there may be shared facilities, as long as there is a clear space of sole occupancy. If you don't think s.8/21 apply, then you are possibly laying yourself open to claims for illegal eviction, let alone difficulties gaining possession if any tenant actually gets advice. I take it you probably think you are also exempt from the tenancy deposit scheme?

Raveboy

In some respects the landlord is better off with a HB claimant in the house because this means they have a fixed steady rent coming in and could turn out to be long term tenant.

Some people stay on benefits for years which means the landlord will have a long term tenant always paying rent to the landlord. if the money is sent to them direct.

The problems with non hB tenants is that they could bump off the landlord for a few months rent and then do a runner!

also with one person in a shared house DOES cause problems because the benefits team will want to know the status/income level of other tenants and then adjust accordingly (level of rent to be paid by benefits). So if the other tenanats are all earning £20k plus per year for argumemts sake then there income will be taken into considration. And probaly the hb claimant will get sweet F.A!!!!

however, if all the other ones all jack in their job for a life on 'starvation income' then it will be a different ball game.

Tiglet

Nearly_Legal wrote: »

If the landlord doesn't live in the property, the basic rule is as follows: Is there exclusive possession of a defined space - like a room? Is there rent on a periodic basis? Then it is a tenancy. Street v Mountford. And the default is that it is an AST. There is no requirement that an AST is for a separate address, none at all. And it doesn't matter that there may be shared facilities, as long as there is a clear space of sole occupancy.

I stand corrected.

Oh dear...If you don't think s.8/21 apply, then you are possibly laying yourself open to claims for illegal eviction, let alone difficulties gaining possession if any tenant actually gets advice. I take it you probably think you are also exempt from the tenancy deposit scheme?

Your manners are appalling. If you are unable to offer advice in a better spirit than this then please don't bother.