To think that making the benefits system instant would help alleviate poverty?

[AndHarry]

Hands up, I have no experience of how the system works but as I've been reading the news and various threads on here, the same thing crops up again and again: JSA, housing and other benefit claims take so long to process that people are left destitute and once they are approved it takes so long to make changes that it's often not worth taking casual jobs.

So with the universal credit why can't job centres process claims electronically during appointments with claimants, with money paid using the 3 day payment system?

Is that totally naive?

[SweetCarolinePomPomPom]

Sorry, my point being that many LL's would have said 'Sod that' and made that tenant homeless. I didn't. But I could afford to wait it out. some cannot.

[SweetCarolinePomPomPom]

HB is one of the biggest transfers of public funds to private hands going, and those hands that it benefits are not the claimants but the landlords who are getting their mortgages paid off by tax-payers' money. Damn right they should be grateful. Still, of course they won't be - they think they have a God-given right to other people's money anyway, because that is the very definition of a landlord.

Well I agree with the first part of your statement, but that situation has been created and encouraged by a succession of governments both Labour and Tory and it's only since the crash of 2008 that life has been made pretty tough on LL's. Although of course it does still benefit the claimants, as they are getting at least a portion of their living expenses paid, as opposed to no financial help at all - which is the very definition of a welfare benefit, is it not?

As for the second part of your statement, 'they think they have a God-given right to other people's money anyway, because that is the very definition of a landlord.' what load of complete and utter tosh.

[SweetCarolinePomPomPom]

It would be kind of nice if working people (the majority of HB claimants in London and a substantial majority elsewhere are in work) could afford to have a home without having the state having to subsidise the prices landlords charge though, wouldn't it?

Yes it would. The trouble is, while property prices are stagnant (as they still are in large swathes of the country, often where the need for people to claim HB is most prevalent) the LL has to charge an amount of rent that makes him some money after all expenses because he cannot rely on any significant capital gain on the price he paid for the house. And when he does eventually sell the house he has to pay capital gains tax, plus he pays tax on any part of the rental income that is profit.Plus, apart from accidental LL's renting out one property, most LLs spend a significant amount of time and effort on managing their portfolio, whether large or small.

The market rate for rent on any privately owned property will always have to reflect that. For many it's a full time job and if the risks and the hassles outweigh the rewards they'll sell up and quit. So what then? Street upon street of empty housing in depressed areas, that should be bought up and refurbished by HAs and LAs - but they aren't. Why? Because the HA's and the LA's have exactly the same attitude as the private LL's. They don't want the hassle or the risk. They'd rather just shell out endless HB and make it someone else's problem.

There is no way around it I am afraid. Except for their to be lots lots lots more social housing built. but that is not the LL's fault, nor is it within his control to make it happen.

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

Its undeniable that the government have had a huge hand in this mess.

It just galls me when I hear of a btl LL complaining about how difficult it is for them. Well if its so terrible and you don't make a profit, sell up. Isn't it enough that you are having a house paid for, without having to make a profit aswell? If enough did sell, it could force the governments hand into actually doing something to fix it all.

[SweetCarolinePomPomPom]

And it's a chicken and egg situation with rent and HB levels. Rent on properties suitable for HB tenants tends to be set by what the LA will pay in HB, not necessarily the other way around. If a LL goes to view a property he will know what the maximum rate for HB in that area will be. Depending on the desirability of the house/area he will know whether he is likely to command more rent than the maximum HB payable, and whether the HB claimants in that area are likely to be in a position to pay any top up. If not then he can only use the max HB as a benchmark for rental income and he knows he needs to buy that house at a certain price or lower to achieve his minimum yield - if he can't he won't touch it. It does not make good financial sense. In fact if he's borrowing money to buy the house his mortgage company will want to see evidence of rental values in the area v. purchase price, and if they don't like the annual yield they won't lend the money.

Which is why many HB claimants often end up in the crappiest cheapest houses in towns no-one (who has a choice) will touch with a bargepole. The house has to be dirt cheap to make it turn a monthly profit for the LL. But again, that's hardly the LL's fault is it?

[SweetCarolinePomPomPom]

Isn't it enough that you are having a house paid for, without having to make a profit aswell?

Erm...well no, not if it's your job or the way you choose to invest! I don't want to work for nothing, neither do I want to sink my retirement fund into something that will be worth less at the end than it is now - do you?!

What do you mean by having a house paid for? you are assuming that we all make enormous capital gains on every property we buy just buy leaving it sitting there but those days are long gone.

[WooWooOwl]

Perhaps the system should be that as your salary increases your council/HA rent goes up, and you are asked to either leave and rent privately or pay the increase accordingly. That way the people with the greatest need would have access to affordable social housing as there would be a more regular turnover when previous tenants better their circumstances and move on. If they choose not to at least they will be contributing a fairer level of rent in relation to their income.

I can see the benefits of a system like this, but there will be major drawbacks as well.

According to the theories used by some posters, it could also be considered discriminatory, as something that should be available to all will only be available to a few. Social housing is already given to those who most need it, but if you make rent charges dependent on income than you are effectively discriminating against higher earners, who need somewhere to live as much as anyone else.

It would also act as a disincentive to improving income, because if you take a better paid job and more hours of work only for your rent to then take the extra money you earn, you're unlikely to make the effort to earn more because you won't see any benefit, so what's the point? Especially if it mean you would be asked to move out of your home, change your children's schools etc. It wouldn't make sense to earn more.

[WooWooOwl]

Well if its so terrible and you don't make a profit, sell up. Isn't it enough that you are having a house paid for, without having to make a profit aswell

Being a landlord does involve work. You don't just hand over a set of keys then sit back and wait for the money to roll in. There is a lot of work, risk and responsibility involved as well.

And I'm sure you're not suggesting that anyone should work for free, as we all know how unpopular mandatory work activity (workfare) is.

Why the need to look for someone to blame for the cost of housing? It's just simple market forces, supply and demand that pushes house prices up. There are too may people in this tiny country and not enough housing. There is no individual or group of individuals that are directly to blame for this.

But you can blame the group that is HB claimants for the fact that they are higher risk tenants.

[Elfhame]

How can you blame a whole group for being statistically a higher risk?

A household can only control their own rent. They can do nothing to change the behaviour of others.

I wonder what the statistics are. I would bet the majority do actually pay their rents, most people fear for the roof over their heads.

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

My issue isn't necessarily with the LLs who have a portfolio and who do treat it as a business, because IME (I have lived in 10+ rentals) they are much more relaxed about the whole thing. They have the contingency to cover delays in benefits, and a couple of days lateness in payment occasionally (when your employer fucks up or the bank crashes as happened to me last year) doesn't phase them. Repairs are carried out promptly and properly, because it is in their interests as well as the tenants.

Its the have-a-go LLs that really gall me. And some of the worst times in my life can be directly attributed to this group of people. They stretch themselves for a btl property then breathe down the tenants necks for money, in my case before it was even due. In my case we were threatened and made homeless twice in the space of four months last year because of these types.

Recently my friend and her partner (late twenties, both still live at home) bought a btl and I have heard nothing but moaning and lording it over from her. I lost a little respect for them both after that. Great that they got a mortgage, but they don't have the contingency and what seems to them like a great idea, is clearly completely irresponsible.

Sorry for this rant, but as a HB claimant who has been dicked around too many times, this cuts very close to home.

[WooWooOwl]

There is no excuse for landlords hassling you for money before it is due, and just as there are plenty of crap tenants, there are crap landlords as well.

But why shouldn't someone be hassled for money that they owe. Whether they have a contingency fund or not is irrelevant, if money is owed on a certain date than money should be paid on a certain date, otherwise the late payer can reasonably expect to lose the service they are supposed to be paying for.

That's just basic common sense.

I'm probably what you would consider to be a 'have a go landlord'. The property I rent out is tiny, not a family home (not that that should make any difference). I own it outright because I lost a parent as a child, and decisions were made on my behalf which caused me to end up as a landlord. My rental income is what prevents me from having to claim child tax credits and working tax credits because i work in a low paid but essential to society type job, and for that I am lucky. But it certainly doesn't pay for long haul holidays or any of the other luxuries some perceive, and oddly enough, I'd rather have my parent back.

I resent being seen as greedy or as trying to make a profit out of the benefit system by people who are too small minded to see that landlords are not the problem with housing in this country.

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

Because sometimes things happen which are out of the tenants control, that prevent the rent being paid. However, both times we were made homeless our rent was up to date.

The have a go LLs I am referring to are actually the people who seek it out with £££ in their eyes without actually thinking it through. They don't know the damage they can cause.

As an aside, if you are eligible to claim tax credits, claim them. No one is going to hail you a hero for not claiming something you are eligible for.

[WooWooOwl]

I appreciate that sometimes things happen that aren't within the tenants control, but that is just a fact of life, the same as a homeowner might be unable to pay their mortgage if they are made redundant.

If you were made to leave rental properties when you were paid up, then it probably wasn't anything to do with HB.

I'm not eligible for tax credits and I'm not trying to be hailed a hero. I'm just thankful that I don't have to claim benefits just to feed, clothe and house my own family because I own something that someone else wants to pay to live in out of their own wages.

There are many reasons why people are tenants and there are many reasons why people are landlords. We are all just trying to get on in life and landlords as a whole do not deserve the criticism they get on this site.

[Wallison]

I don't think that LHA is the problem - in the year after LHA was slashed, rents in London went up 7% and 4% nationally, so landlords aren't charging what they do because of LHA. They're charging what they do because housing in this country is all fucked up thanks to 30+ years of housing policy failure by successive govts causing misery to the 35% of households who rent, and landlords are profiting from that. It's not even as simple as supply and demand - there are lots of empty houses out there - it is complex and endemic policy failure.

I actually find it slightly horrifying how unregulated provision of rented housing is in the UK compared to other countries - even the USA land of the free etc expects more from them (and taxes them properly as well) and in other European countries the system is much tighter with very few small-time chancers - landlords are massive institutional investors who have to comply with a whole bunch of conditions before they are ever considered fit to provide homes, which seems a much better system than we have here where any old Tom Dick or Harry can call themselves a landlord, the downsides of which can be easily seen in, to give just one example, the typically woeful state of much private sector rentals. Also, much of Europe has rent controls which is the only sensible solution to the huge bleeding out of public funds that occurs in the form of HB/LHA.

[HappyMummyOfOne]

"Landlords should be fucking grateful to HB claimants;

Damn right they should be grateful. Still, of course they won't be - they think they have a God-given right to other people's money anyway, because that is the very definition of a landlord."

A landlord is a business, very likely paying tax on rental income and their main job. Those on HB are likely not working, have one adult in the household not working, work part time etc. Yet its the landlords who believe they have the "god given right to other peoples money"

[Strumpetron]

I don't understand why land lords get so much shit.

[utreas]

YABU an instant decision doesn't allow the time for the necessary verification of the claimants statements.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

What verification do you mean Utreas?

[TheWomanTheyCallJayne]

We rented our house out
My dh was made redundant and the only job he could get meant a move. We put the house on the market but it didn't sell (it was even on To buy or not to buy) so we ended up renting it out because not being wealthy, in fact the complete opposite, we had the house we were to live in to pay for. Even then with agents costs and bills between tenants we still had to pay towards both houses and got into more debt.
I don't know what the likes of Wallison would have rather us done. Presumably have the house repossessed and us declare bankruptcy.

[MajorieDawes]

Damn right they should be grateful. Still, of course they won't be - they think they have a God-given right to other people's money anyway, because that is the very definition of a landlord

I'm not grateful and I'm a landlord. I don't see why I should be. I'm also a tenant and don't expect MY landlord to be bent over with gratitude to us either.

We worked hard to buy our house and have a mortgage which we are paying off. We then got a job offer overseas and are currently renting out our UK house as well as renting where we currently live (since we do actually have to live somewhere). We didn't want to sell because we might move back in the future.

In what way do I think I have a God given right to other people's money? Since that is the very definition of a landlord, which is what I am.

Should we just open our house to whoever wishes to live there for free? And carry on paying our mortgage of course as well as the rent for where we live now.

I think it's pure jealousy. No other reason for such vitriol.

[Lililly]

The reason for paying the tenant direct us to stop discrimination - so the landlord will not be aware that some if the rent is through benefits. The tenant has to manage their own finance.This makes sense I think?

I was a landlord through circumstance for a while and let to a family on HB. A few months in, there was a HB issue, and so the family stopped paying the rent. For several months. Because the HB had been paid direct, they just transfered this problem straight to me.
My family had the same income as the renting family (dh's wirked together) they got HB due to kids I think.
I had to continue to pay the mortgage and my own rent, whereas because they, as rent paid by HB, did not prioritise their rent, they didn't seem to see it as their responsibility.
I think this is the issue

[Spickle]

I am in a similar situation to WooWooOwl.

I have a small 2 bed house which I have rented out to a young couple for the last 4 years. The couple were working, had a guarantor and passed the credit checks. After two years though, they have two children, a dog, the husband lost his job and they are now on benefits. They have been struggling to pay the rent ever since, sometimes a month or so behind. They lost their guarantor too. I, and the letting agency, have been pretty fair to them - I never get the rent paid on time, they are in the house all day and a few things have gone wrong that I've had to fix, but I am aware that they are trying their best to manage, they have been pretty good tenants and say they consider the house to be their home and they seem to be looking after it, so I have accepted that I can't rely on the rental money on time and that there is considerable wear and tear on the house. I do feel sorry that this family are struggling to make ends meet and obviously can't afford to get on the housing ladder. I know they have got their names down on the council house waiting list, but unless I take steps to evict them and make them homeless, they are not a high priority. They may want me to evict them, so they can get cheaper council housing, but they are not allowed to become intentionally homeless for that very reason. I do not have a mortgage on this rental house, so that has enabled me to be relaxed and easygoing regarding rental, however I don't personally know these people, it is a business transaction and as such, while they are making an effort to manage their finances I am happy to accommodate, but there has to be a point at which it becomes unacceptable.

[WooWooOwl]

Sounds like its your tenants that should be 'fucking grateful' to you for housing them them Spickle!

[Mrsdavidcaruso]

Lililly no it cant be the case of stopping'dicrimination' as some LLs are not discriminating but are not allowed to rent to benefit claimants due to their mortage restrictions.

I dont think the DWP would be advocating something that could have the affect of a LL being santioned by his mortgage provider due to his tenants lying to him.

[Strumpetron]

I dont think the DWP would be advocating something that could have the affect of a LL being santioned by his mortgage provider due to his tenants lying to him

As much as I feel for the landlords, claimants need to be able to get to grips with managing their money and this is a step towards that I think. I have no doubts in some cases it's going to go horrifically wrong and I'm not sure what the repercussions will be long term, but people need to see the value of the money they're being given and learn how to deal with it.

If they can't, they get chucked out just as anyone else would. Lessons will be learned. Although I realise this could be costly in both money and time for the land lord