To want to give up on private renting completely..

[Bornfizzle]

Hi all

I've just recently given birth and due to unforeseen circumstances I'm going to have to look for a home to rent privately but this is proving to be an impossible task as most landlords are listing in their ads "no dss" or "no housing benefit", some for homes that are 300 a month and under so I am no way looking too far out of my price range. The LHA in Belfast NI is roughly 363 for a two bed.

I know some landlord's mortgages don't permit tenants who are getting housing benefit but after surfing the subject for a while on MN and other sites there seem to be those landlords who tar anyone who is getting benefits as scroungers who will ruin their property and spend their rent money on drugs, alcohol ....you name it! I understand being spurned by previous tenants but surely blanketing us all is slightly unfair!

I am in no way any of those things and only want a place to call home for my DC.

Sorry for the rant ...after DP abandoning us at the last minute and a difficult pregnancy everything just seems hopeless. Waiting list for council housing for non priority is roughly 3 years, even waiting for a hostel would take a good while....I just feel like crying and screaming all a at once!

needsasock

Eeek - my very own stalker !!!!!!!!!!!!

written well that's just plain offensive. Actually, even though I could have just stopped paying rent during the eviction process, I didn't, because I wanted at least one of the parties concerned to be morally right.

then you ought to pay rent if you want to keep it.

What if you have lost your job, and are waiting for HB to come through?

What if you also know that if your LL knows you are claiming HB they will evict you anyway?

Two months is no time in those circumstances, and really, any ll should take into account the potential eviction time in a contingency plan.

Woowoo, I understand what you are saying, to an extent. But it seems the situation we have is for good tenants who find themselves claiming HB, they have a huge dilemma around whether to keep quiet (and lls too, if they know - why would anyone turn a good tenant out if they are paying their way?).

I think this is the answer to why there is so much discrepancy over how much of the private rental sector is being funded/propped up by HB.

Born, I really hope you find a ll with flexibility and common sense soon.

Beastofburden – I’m not sure that insurance companies say no outright. I have needed a very rare form of business insurance before now and been told directly that you can basically insure anything. It’s whether the premiums are just so high it makes for less attractive profit margins or an unfeasible business. So I would think a lot of lls opt for cheaper cover, which is understandable when that option is available.

What would happen if the risk of non-payments were spread over all ll insurance and have all insurance companies provide cover those with tenants on HB under equality law, or something? It would have to be alongside a vast increase in the availability of social housing, whether this is new build or some kind of housing association using existing properties which aren’t really serving the needs of society.

Sorry, what was offensive about writtens comment?

I think it's probably the sheer lack of compassion or willingness to even try to understand what might force someone to be unable to pay their rent, that might offend.

The Laws and processes as detailed upthread do at least go some way to support and protect those with dire circumstances, rather than just turf people out "pronto".

written well that's just plain offensive. Actually, even though I could have just stopped paying rent during the eviction process, I didn't, because I wanted at least one of the parties concerned to be morally right.

are you the one who said that you complained about something and got immediately evicted? As I said before, that shouldn't be allowed. in other places, once you're in, you're in. the insecurity here obviously leads to substandard housing. Tenants won't complain for fear of being evicted, and properties don't get repaired. it's madness.

What if you also know that if your LL knows you are claiming HB they will evict you anyway?

that's not non payment of rent. furthermore, I already said that they shouldn't discriminate against HB tenants.

What if you have lost your job, and are waiting for HB to come through?

if you have lost your job, and you are in the queue for HB and it's pending, you should be able to go talk to your landlord and resolve it.

My problem is that people seem to think that we should be generous to people who lose their jobs (I agree), but that someone else should have to bare the burden of that generosity (namely, some landlord). That's wrong. If you believe people should be helped in times of sudden need (I agree), we should all bare the burden of that.

the fundamental problem that I see is that tenants need far more security than offered by the current system.

I think brits need to know what it is like in other places. if you haven't lived abroad, you probably don't really don't know how crappy laws are here for tenants.

however, even in places where tenants rights are much stronger, the law still comes down hard against tenants who don't pay rent.

I would be interested to know how things work in other countries as well, because the current system in this country doesn't seem to work particularly well for either tenants or landlords.

Decent landlords will be happy to give long term security to tenants. From my POV as a LL, if my tenants are happy and want to stay long term, then I'm happy because it means the rent keeps coming in and I don't have to go through the process of finding new tenants. I'd much rather make repairs etc to maintain my own property to a good standard than have to keep finding new tenants, checking references and such like. It's basic common sense.

The only reason I'd ever want to evict a tenant is if they don't pay their rent, cause damage to the property, upset the neighbours, or in very extreme circumstances if I needed to move into or sell the property, but that is highly unlikely to happen.

@woowoo

(for example from some places in america and much of canada)

• tenancies by default start with a 1 year lease (during which you can also be asked to leave for damage or non payment of rent).
• after that period, the lease goes "month to month".
• during the month to month period you have essentially the same protection as you would under the 1 year lease period. You can be evicted, but only for certain reasons (non payment of rent, damage, the landlord wants to occupy the property or a close relative does). You CAN'T be evicted because the landlord wants you out or wants more rent, or you are a "trouble maker" (i.e. want stuff repaired).
• normal rent raises (even when you are month to month) are tied to inflation (under certain circumstances, with permission from the city, the LL can apply for a higher raise, but needs to justify it eg extraordinary repairs etc).

the last two are key. you aren't subject to arbitrary rent hikes, no matter the terms of your original lease. and you can't be asked to leave unless, basically, the landlord wants to live occupy or sell the place. if your landlord claims he wants to move in and does not after you move out, you can sue him.

I have lived under both schemes (the sensible one like I described and the British one, which is also in place in many parts of america) and it makes an enormous difference to renting. renting becomes a viable long term option. It takes pressure off the housing market as well because people aren't scrambling to get out of shitty rental conditions.

we moved to London and decided to buy as opposed to renting specifically because the tenant protections are so weak. We were having a child and there were regular stories of people being forced to move out because of huge rental hikes come lease renewal time.

In the UK things vary around the country. In London rents are very competitive and tenants pick and choose - they will choose a different flat if it is cheaper. My daughter's tenants this summer looked at 4 other flats (which were all in the end worse than hers) before deciding to stay put and they all had a rent negotiation.

Many landlords want long leases but tenants are between house sales or trying to sell somewhere in the North but moved south for work, or plan to b uy or might move abroad so they don't want to sign a ten year lease. However it is possible under current law for both sides to agree fixed terms if they want to. Each time the tenant leaves the landlord often has to pay over £1k and add another £1k say for a month empty and that is a huge cost when tenants leave. Short leases are not what many landlords want.

I am sure my daughter would like the rent to be more than the mortgage but if the tenants won't [pay that because other rents are more competitive which is exactly the calculation in play in many bits of London then the rent doesn't rise.

Labour's plan to introduce rent controls is a joke as it doesn't really mean that at all. It just says you can increase if market rents have gone up - that is the only time landlords put rents up anyway so it basically means you can increase the rent annually at your break point (or reduce it if that is the only way to keep your tenants).

London competitive? Are you joking? London is insanely expensive - you'd be lucky to get a room (a fucking room, ffs!) in a shared house for anything less than £600 a month there. London is one of the most expensive places in the world to live in, housing wise.

It depends what you mean by competition. My daughter's 1 bed is about £1300 a month (less than her costs of the property) and tenants shop around and look for cheaper rents. If she put the rent up to say £1500 they would leave as they can find other properties for £1300.

There is competition but because of the costs of buying landlords even just to break even need to charge rents which cover their interest only mortgage and letting agent costs and repairs.

It is a very competitive market though. Just because prices are high does not mean there is one provider raking in 300% profits.

Actually if interest rates doubled (and I've paid 12% in my time- I currently pay 3.1% and my daughter pays nearer 5% as they heap on a very high rate if you buy to let) rents could double. We have never had such low interest rates in the UK for such a long period. It is the capital cost of buying the one bed flats in London which means landlords even just to break even charge what they do and people are all there flocking to pay - all these young unmarried with two professional salaries from all over the globe working in London for a few years.

Labour's plan to introduce rent controls is a joke as it doesn't really mean that at all. It just says you can increase if market rents have gone up - that is the only time landlords put rents up anyway so it basically means you can increase the rent annually at your break point (or reduce it if that is the only way to keep your tenants).

see, eveni labour is proposing weaker protection for tenants that are already afforded to tenants in other places.

it's crazy here.