[Bluey]

I haven´t verified the following story

"RLA Warns Landlords On Housing Benefit Tenants

Private sector landlords are being advised by the Residential Landlords Association to refuse tenancies to housing benefit claimants, because Local Housing Allowance is now handed to claimants instead of their landlords.

RLA chairman Lee Dribben said that a number of tenants are not using the money to pay rent, with landlords unable to take such losses. “In the face of this so-called reform, I can see little alternative than for professional landlords to quit the housing allowance market altogether,” he said.

Within months of the new system being phased-in, a Department for Work and Pensions report revealed that 77% of landlords with claimant tenants were reporting arrears."

[Moulin]

For me with this new regulation I really can't afford to take the risk of losing rent. I have had bad experiences with tenants not paying regardless of safeguards. So, sorry folks no more DSS.

[Pennant The Tenant]

[Bluey]

The reason given for the scheme which makes it law for the tenant, rather than the landlord to receive the rent, is to make the tenant take more responsibility.

Also, there's a notion that it makes the tenant have wider choices, be able to shop around more with their rent.

Most countries, I believe, pay the tenant directly the housing benefit rather than the landlord so it could be the case that the UK is just modernising, aligning itself with the most common way that housing benefit is distributed.

[Pennant The Tenant]

[healthy_lemon]

The only good thing I can see - which maybe for the best in the long run - is that new types of landlord and agents - be they pseudo landlord/agents or the recognition that a new social housing service for homeless/poor people will need to be created - to deal with the massive influx of poor from reposessions and backrupts, as well as the new Brits (Eastern Europeans) that may decide to stay here into old age.

All this is great news for the totally legit landlord that is forced from now on to pay an agency large fees for vetting clients - as they won't have to deal with the old, the ill or the disabled as tennants anymore.

[Bluey]

My questions to Healthy Lemon would be - where do you expect the 100,000 new landlords to come from now that the RLA recommends to its members that they withdraw from accepting DSS tenants?

And which organisations or individuals would want to step into a risky proposition where initial figures indicate that 77% of landlords experienced rent arrears when the scheme was introduced and 56% no longer want to consider HB claimants?

And what extra government assistance in the social housing sector do you imagine compensating for the scarcity of private accommodation? All the govt info I've seen around social housing provision is that it isn't interested in increasing it.

PS landlords tend to pass on their fees to tenants in the form of higher rent...

Here's some more info here

http://firstrung.co.uk/articles.asp?pageid=NEWS&articlekey=4732

"RLA chairman Lee Dribben:

"The trouble is ... the money is often spent on other priorities instead of paying the rent and there are no winners from a situation that just encourages more rent arrears.

"Landlords can't afford to take that sort of financial loss on a routine basis while they chase defaulting tenants who have already spent their rent allowance on other things.

"Vulnerable low-income tenants, who already have difficulty managing their money, are being driven further into debt."

[Moulin]

Well said Bluey But don't forget that even when the HB was paid by DSS there was no certainty that one would get paid. I had a tenant who though informing Housing Benefit that she was leaving never told me. So yes I got paid up to the date she left. I phoned her about another matter and was told that she had written notice two months before............;;;Balderdash!!! She wanted her deposit back so I arrange for the property manager of my solicitor to go round and check the invertory but she had flitted already and taken my furniture with her. Due to data protection I have been unable to find her. We are not all landlords with multiple property and some of us really do live on the rent.

[Bluey]

I do worry about what will happen - social housing has been decimated and the burden on housing the vulnerable transferred to the private sector.

Now the private sector is also going to start shrugging off housing those in the greatest of need because landlords are now resisting even more DSS applicants who often struggled to find decent basic accommodation before this change in how it is paid.

[Bluey]

Here's a document which I think shows the philosophy behind the change of payment from landlord to tenant

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/publications/2002/building_choice/prospectus.pdf

expanding choice for the customer, increase personal responsibility, reduce fraud, tackle rogue landlords,

"empowering people to budget for and pay their rent themselves rather than have it paid for them." etc

[healthy_lemon]

[healthy_lemon]

oh yeah, RLA chairman Lee Dribben is a wally (in my opinion) if he thinks that landlords banning people on benefits is a postive way forward, as what he is actually doing is increasing the social exclusion and stigma of vunerable people such as the disabled, the sick and the old by deliberatley putting landlords off accepting poorer people

- he will no doubt help cause many landlords to end up in court on charges of discrimination against the most needy, which will cost you.

- how many houses landlords own a properly equipt for a disabled or older tennant for example ? - it'll cost you to do up your property if you refuse a disabled client - whom happens to also be on benefit.

- the government will basically 'whip the private sectors ass' in other ways if you turn away from this problem, mediation and compromise will eventually have to come into play, depends if you want the terms forced on you at a later date by the government - or you work with social housing groups to prevent it first.

[Bluey]

[healthy_lemon]

[quote="Bluey]
The housing benefit claimants will just have to turn to crime and suffer bad health...[/quote]

TB has doubled in London in the last 10 years and don't they say New York City is safer than London these days in terms of crime ?

[healthy_lemon]

some links to TB/ bad housing and crime / poverty connection

1 in 12 kids will get TB....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3627805.stm

TB rates similar to china
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,,854076,00.html

Poverty, Inequality and Crime
http://consult.libdems.org.uk/poverty/index.php/consultation-paper/cross-cutting-issues/poverty-inequality-and-crime/

Proverty and murder rates in UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4348238.stm

[KP6]

The Money Should be paid to the tenants, additionally landlords should not be entitled to know whether or not their tenants are on benefit or working. It's a means of discrimination, there are bad and good tenants it has nothing to do with whether they are on benefits or not.

Just because somone works in no way means that they will pay the rent on time or at all; there is no difference between someone on benefits and someone working, both can get in debt. If there is a difference then please let me know?

[Bluey]

From April, the intention is that tenants receive the benefit directly instead of it being signed over to the landlords so that's a moot point.

You have to remember that HB is paid in 4 weekly cycles, pays less than market rent and is paid in arrears. This is a huge contrast to monthly market rent paid in advance. So while you advocate that it shouldn't be an issue, in fact, the whole Housing Benefit payment system is out of kilter with wider society.

Pilot studies indicate that there are significant rent arrears from tenants squandering their rent when it is paid to them. A landlord cannot get it paid to them until they are 8 weeks in arrears and when they are 8 weeks in arrears, a judge will award them possession of the property so by the time it's sorted, they are due for eviction.

The point and purpose of the new Local Housing Allowance is to make them responsible for managing their own money but clearly some are so removed from taking control of their affairs that they can't manage the switch.

Also, a significant minority of claimants have mental health or addiction problems, so not only do they pay less rent and operate in a slow payment system, their behaviour may make them less desirable as tenants in general.

Private landlords are not a branch of social services - claimants may want their status to be irrelevant but don't offer any parity with working tenants.

While it is true that working tenants also default and get in arrears, if you can hold down a job, the chances are you are better advantaged at handling a budget.

Also, HB claimants are known to be harder to evict than working tenants. This is because they are more likely to contact the local council to be housed and will be told to stay in the property after they've been served notice and wait until the landlord takes them to court. This is because they are told if they leave ahead of the court case of their own volition, they will be deemed as having made themselves intentionally homeless.

So in addition to having more propensity to racking up arrears, not offering deposits, paying lower rent in a slower cycle paid in arrears, they also have the reputation of being extremely difficult to evict.

I hope I've answered your query about the difference between working and non-working tenants, ('if there is a difference then please let me know?')

[KP6]

Hi Bluey,

You have to remember that HB is paid in 4 weekly cycles, pays less than market rent and is paid in arrears. This is a huge contrast to monthly market rent paid in advance. So while you advocate that it shouldn't be an issue, in fact, the whole Housing Benefit payment system is out of kilter with wider society.

I don't see how you can say that it pay's less than market rent, the council pays upto a max £500 for a single person on income support; there are numerous places that are for rent that is considerably lower including landlords that will and wont rent to DSS tenants. I suppose there are tenants on DSS who try to stretch themselves too far, but then the same could be said for working tenants.

Pilot studies indicate that there are significant rent arrears from tenants squandering their rent when it is paid to them.

I would ask are they squandering their rent or is the money being taken from them before they get a chance to pay the landlord? Although the effect is the same i.e. they may have a direct debit setup which takes the money from the account before the get a chance to give the money to landlords, so not really squandering; maybe an individual rent account should be setup instead of just having it paid into a general bank account.

Although currently this upto the tenant to open a new bank account, maybe this should be mandatory in order to recieve LHA. Maybe they could call it the LHA account, then there can be no excuse for the money not being paid to the landlords.



A landlord cannot get it paid to them until they are 8 weeks in arrears and when they are 8 weeks in arrears, a judge will award them possession of the property so by the time it's sorted, they are due for eviction.




True, but what is worse having somone on benefit who is 8 weeks in arrears or an empty property? i.e. an empty property wont make landlords any money at all.

However I do take your point, is this going to be the same situation with the LHA as surely they will be paying into bank account direcly rather then writing cheques is faster?



Also, a significant minority of claimants have mental health or addiction problems, so not only do they pay less rent and operate in a slow payment system, their behaviour may make them less desirable as tenants in general.




As you stated this is a minority, and these particular individuals should be dealt with via social services in fact if they are thought not to be able to manage their own finances then the LHA can still be paid directly to the landlord.



Private landlords are not a branch of social services - claimants may want their status to be irrelevant but don't offer any parity with working tenants.

While it is true that working tenants also default and get in arrears, if you can hold down a job, the chances are you are better advantaged at handling a budget.

I wouldn't bet on it, just because you have a job doesn't mean you are any better at handling a budget, in fact they maybe considerbly worse. I only read in the paper a few days back that someone in charge of the council finances were in considerable debt and this person was an accountant.

Additionally addicts come from all walks of life not just the poor, you only need to read the papers and listen to the news to know that. Alot of people on HB can't afford drugs in the 1st place!!



Also, HB claimants are known to be harder to evict than working tenants. This is because they are more likely to contact the local council to be housed and will be told to stay in the property after they've been served notice and wait until the landlord takes them to court. This is because they are told if they leave ahead of the court case of their own volition, they will be deemed as having made themselves intentionally homeless.




This is hardley the HB claimants fault, maybe both Lanlords and tenants should start taking the councils to court over this practice. It is unfair on the lanlords and the tenants.



So in addition to having more propensity to racking up arrears, not offering deposits, paying lower rent in a slower cycle paid in arrears, they also have the reputation of being extremely difficult to evict.



I don't know what you are refering to when you say about deposits, as I'm on HB and have always paid a deposit or about paying a lower rent as I only rent from landlords who offer rates within my budget..i.e. under £500.


I hope I've answered your query about the difference between working and non-working tenants, ('if there is a difference then please let me know?')

You have given me food for thought , however I still stick with my origional comments that the money should be paid to the tenants and landlords should not be entitled to know if they are working or not.

Best Wishes,

[KP6]

Hi Bluey,

I just wanted to say after reading more on the LHA, the majority of the issues you raised are actually helped if not solved by the LHA. For example the arrears issue is being addressed by the fact that DSS Tenants will no longer have to wait to be assesed by a rent officer which causes the majority of delays, with the LHA I should just be able to make a call to the council and if I move it is simply considerd a change of circumstance; so I don't need to be re-assesed which means neither landlords or tenants should need to wait for payment.

No-body is saying that it will be perfect, but it can't be any worse then the current HB system.

Best Wishes,

[Dirty Boy]

I wouldn't if I was a landlord, I must admit.

People depending upon the state are often at the edge of financial stress, and it would be foolish to assume that given the choice between paying the rent for that month (and thus, possibly eventually being evicted) and not having enough food for your children that day, the rent will naturally come last. I see the argument about "some people working being equally financially reckless", but I would point out that often they have not yet exhauseted all their "last options".

It's simply a greater risk, and it comes as no surprise to me the landlords association suggest people don't accept DSS rent.

I'm afraid to say, things come down to the lowest common demoniator - and here, being a DSS tenant suggests the living situation is more stresed that non-DSS.

[Bluey]

[quote="KP6"]

KP6, thanks for the debate, which I've enjoyed. It's nice to have a sensible measured debate on these forums. Here are my further thoughts.

I don't see how you can say that it pay's less than market rent, the council pays upto a max £500 for a single person on income support

I believe that the rates set by the council are often 10-20% below what landlords can get as market rates from working tenants. In addition, landlords on forums that I use often complain that local authorities often carry the same rate for many years, so they suffer from deflation, plus tenants are expected to top up the difference between the market rent and the local council set rate for HB and struggle to pay this.

I would ask are they squandering their rent or is the money being taken from them before they get a chance to pay the landlord?


I don't know what the origin is behind the delays, whether the high rate of arrears is caused by delays in processing or has been paid to the tenant or squandered. I assume that it's the latter as the pilots were set up as LHA so the tenant should have been paid directly.

A landlord cannot get it paid to them until they are 8 weeks in arrears and when they are 8 weeks in arrears, a judge will award them possession of the property so by the time it's sorted, they are due for eviction.




True, but what is worse having somone on benefit who is 8 weeks in arrears or an empty property? i.e. an empty property wont make landlords any money at all.


Having someone on benefit not paying is ten times worse than having an empty property. With an empty property, there is a prospect of finding a tenant to move in. With a property with a tenant in it squandering public money, the landlords not only face a hit in income but extra expenses to evict them.

because you have a job doesn't mean you are any better at handling a budget, in fact they maybe considerbly worse.


Realistically, though, someone who can't manage to find a job, enrol in education or training or who has addiction or health problems isn't likely to be a fantastic candidate to take responsibility, be resourceful, etc, than someone who works and pays bills on a daily basis. I am aware of employed people who get into debt due to living a higher lifestyle than they can afford. But I reckon if you placed 100 employees next to 100 HB claimants, chances are the former are going to be able to cope with the admin/budgeting/planning required.

Also, HB claimants are known to be harder to evict than working tenants. ....This is because they are told if they leave ahead of the court case of their own volition, they will be deemed as having made themselves intentionally homeless.


This is hardley the HB claimants fault, maybe both Lanlords and tenants should start taking the councils to court over this practice. It is unfair on the lanlords and the tenants.


The council are actually following their statutory obligations under the housing act as it relates to homelessness - namely, that a tenant is assessed and has to prove they were not responsible for being homeless, namely, leaving a property ahead of eviction. In other words, they are following the law....

[KP6]

Hi Bluey

KP6, thanks for the debate, which I've enjoyed. It's nice to have a sensible measured debate on these forums. Here are my further thoughts.


Your welcome. its ashame that they don't debate to the same standard in the house of commons! LOL

I believe that the rates set by the council are often 10-20% below what landlords can get as market rates from working tenants.

I'm not sure that I agree with you on this point; although it is true that if you want a really decent place you wil (at present) have to pay between £500 - £550 per month, there are pleanty of places to rent below the £500 which is currently the max set for a single person on income support. I must stress that some of these properties below the £500 are only for working tenants, the place I currently live in is only £425 per month.

In addition, landlords on forums that I use often complain that local authorities often carry the same rate for many years, so they suffer from deflation, plus tenants are expected to top up the difference between the market rent and the local council set rate for HB and struggle to pay this.

I can see why landlords get frustrated with the situation, it would be a good idea for councils to re-asses the rate for HB every year in order to keep up with the current market rate.

Having someone on benefit not paying is ten times worse than having an empty property. With an empty property, there is a prospect of finding a tenant to move in. With a property with a tenant in it squandering public money, the landlords not only face a hit in income but extra expenses to evict them.

Your above comment is a given, however I was not refering to somone on benefit not paying but somone on benefit who was paying after the 8 weeks in arrears (which is not the tenants or landlords fault) ?

A landlord cannot get it paid to them until they are 8 weeks in arrears and when they are 8 weeks in arrears, a judge will award them possession of the property so by the time it's sorted, they are due for eviction.

I don't believe this is true regarding the LHA it might well be true in the begining as new claiment, however once the claim has been processed there is no need for a claiment to make a new claim should they decide to move thus it just carries on to the next landlord.

Let me give you an example, once the LHA comes into force on the 28th april. I am required to make a claim the council then need to check that I am entitled to LHA once this has been established which may take some time, that is it done with. If I decide to move I don't have to make another claim for LHA, I just pay the landlord or estate agent any administration fee and deposit then simply inform the council of my change of address, there are no further checks and as such no delays.

This a big improvement on the current HB system, as I don't have to wait and in turn landlords do not have to wait for somone from the council to come around to the new property to determine whether or not it is a fair rent etc..everytime I decide to move which causes the delays; as it is simply now a change of circumstance thus the arrears issue should no longer be an issue at least from the councils point of view.


It maybe an issue with 1st time claiments , but once claimed it should no longer be an issue when they move

Realistically, though, someone who can't manage to find a job, enrol in education or training or who has addiction or health problems isn't likely to be a fantastic candidate to take responsibility, be resourceful, etc, than someone who works and pays bills on a daily basis.

I think some of your comments are bit unfair in the sense that you generalise that everyone on benefit isn't responsable or resourcful compared to someone who works and pays the bills on a regular basis. I'm on beneift , I always pay my bills on time and don't have an addiction. The only reason I'm on benefit is because no one will give me a job because of a disability which is not my fault; there are a lot of employers out there unfortuenetly who discriminate, Oh and before someone on this forum say's I'm lazy or train up, I have a BSC in Computing and still can't get a job.

I am aware of employed people who get into debt due to living a higher lifestyle than they can afford. But I reckon if you placed 100 employees next to 100 HB claimants, chances are the former are going to be able to cope with the admin/budgeting/planning required.


That would be a good experiment, however I think you would be surprised by the results...it would probably turn out pretty equal... assuming you choose completly randomly.

The council are actually following their statutory obligations under the housing act as it relates to homelessness - namely, that a tenant is assessed and has to prove they were not responsible for being homeless, namely, leaving a property ahead of eviction. In other words, they are following the law....

This is just a cop out for the council, the whole purpose of any notice is for it to be complied with unless it is unjustified. As long as it gives the amount of notice required by the tenancy agreement then there shouldn't be any argument from either the tenant or the council or am I missing something here?

They are not making themselves homeless by complying with an eviction notice!! They are simply following the terms of their tenancy agreement.

Best Wishes,

[Hedgehog]

KP6, spooky, you sound just like me. I also have a BSc in Computing and also haven't been able to find work due to a health problems as employers are reluctant to accommodate my health problems.

To try and work around this I have ventured into trying self employment however it hasn't taken off well enough yet. Subsequently I work all week but still have to rely on housing benefit to pay the rent.

This news about landlords being advised to not accept DSS (as if they needed any more encouragement not to do so) is really bad news for me. I have just learnt that one of my 2 present landlords is about to become bankrupt. This doesn't look good for me as once the bank gets repossession I can be turfed out with a day's notice.

Despite having lived here for over 10 years and paying the rent every month without fail whether it was a period when I was on housing benefit or not. I am single female not in a priority group so there is no chance of the council putting me up.

I haven't been able to find any private landlords around here that will take housing benefit. Yet other than this stigmatizing factor I think I am a model tenant, in fact my other landlord (not the bankrupt one) says I'm the best tenant he has ever had.

The rents are so high round here that even if I do quite well in my business I would still be reliant on HB for at least part of the rent. Why should it matter to a landlord if I paid say 3/4 rent out of my own pocket and the other 1/4 HB and if there was any delay in receving HB I used a credit card to upfront it. The landlord gets his money and gets a good tenant. However all the landlord can think of is the word DSS, loses the opportunity to have a good tenant and the tenant has to give up their business and live in a bus shelter.

I think that landlord's should learn to look beyond the DSS factor when assessing prospective tenants.

[Hedgehog]

PS I've never met the bankrupt landlord but I'm sure he'd also say I was a model tenant.

Also I wanted to say that this case illustrates that its not just tenants who can be bad with managing money.

[Bluey]