Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think my friend is a benefits cheat

146 replies

ljwales · 04/04/2015 23:02

She has several buy to let properties that are all occupied by people in receipt of housing benefit.she regularly monitors the market and if the housing benefit will ever pay any more money for the properties she puts up the rent as she knows the tax payers will pay the increase. She's done this several times over the last few years, even though her costs have fallen massively with the interest rate drops!

OP posts:
19lottie82 · 07/04/2015 10:08

feminine - when it comes to BTL properties, HB recipients and Non HB, are two totally different markets. The LHA allowances are so low, they will only cover the lower section of the market, most professionals would want something more expensive. And vice versa.

GoodbyeToAllOfThat · 07/04/2015 10:13

What is anyone supposed to charge for rent other than what the market will bear?

keepitsimple0 · 07/04/2015 10:35

Still shocked at the amount of people that are happy to see the tax payer ripped off and the rental market distorted for someone's personal gain.

I don't like it. But I don't think this landlord is the problem. It's baked into the system. Scrap the system I say. Don't get people into housing by paying their inflated rents. get them in by building houses.

With that logic, mps expenses were fine as well then.

depends on what specifically you are talking about. MPs transparently following the rules are fine.

19lottie82 · 07/04/2015 10:41

keepitsimple0, nice idea, but where is the money going to come from for all these houses?

SirChenjin · 07/04/2015 10:44

Building houses is one solution (esp on brownfield sites) - but surely some form of rent control is another? There are some excellent examples in other countries that we should look at first before concreting over green belt land imo - especially as the builders, esp round here, aren't in any way required to build 'starter homes' or social housing. More 4/5/6 bed houses at massively inflated prices aren't really what the housing market needs.

19lottie82 · 07/04/2015 10:53

SirChenjin With the rise of the "accidental landlord", rent control could cause a lot of problems. Many LL's rent out one property because they can't sell it, due to negative equity or whatever, and the market rent doesn't even cover the mortgage.

ComposHatComesBack · 07/04/2015 11:06

Lottie

I have no sympathy for so called accidental landlords. Not least because the ones I was renting off seemed to be clueless and resented spending any money on the property, regarding the rent as pure profit.

Every house will sell at the right price, when people say it won't sell what they mean is 'it won't sell for the sum of money I think I'm entitled to' no one promised th constantly rising property prices and if they were fool enough to buy at the peak of an overheated market and that gamble didn't pay off, well hard lines I'm afraid.

19lottie82 · 07/04/2015 11:14

Compos, not all accidental LL's are bad LL's, and a lot of them don't make any "profit" at all.

For a lot of them their home is in negative equity so they can't sell it, full stop. Not just "can't sell it for what they think it's entitled to".

I'm sorry you have been poorly treated by private LL's but it's not really fair to come down so hard on everyone who has suffered financially due to the property market crash and the desire to own their own home (hindsight is a wonderful thing).

SirChenjin · 07/04/2015 11:19

I'm with Compo Lottie. There's been far too much greed built into the property market, with developers building new builds and then selling them at over-inflated prices and local estate agents 'valuing' properties to match those (I'm talking about in this region), and heating up the market - and that's before we get into the issue of land banks. For instance, a big developer is building up here - smallest house is £375k, largest is around £600k. They are 4/5 bed houses. Similar houses in the area are around £50-£100k cheaper - or were. Now, of course, everyone selling their houses have put their prices up - so within the space of 18 months we have seen a massive jump in property prices because of one developer.

19lottie82 · 07/04/2015 11:23

SirChenjin, yes, I do understand the point you're trying to make, and agree with it to a certain extent. My point however, is that if strict rent controls are brought in then it will lead to a lot of repossessions and ripple effects, often for people with families etc.

However, I can't realistically, see rent controls being enforced in the foreseeable future.

19lottie82 · 07/04/2015 11:27

PS Just for the record, I'm not a LL and I don't own a property in negative equity :)

Theoretician · 07/04/2015 11:31

Its immoral, because she isn't charging what the house is worth. She is charging above that because the Tennants are receiving hb.

If she's charging more than the market rent for the quality of property, why don't the tenants move elsewhere and get more for their money? Or, more precisely, why did the tenants choose her property in the first place, if they could have got something better for the money?

SirChenjin · 07/04/2015 11:32

Lottie - I disagree. Rent controls do work in other countries - and whilst I don't think they are the only answer they are one option that I think should be used (as well as others). Dont forget there are many LLs who arent in negative equity - letting is a profitable business for plenty of them. Simply building more houses just isn't the answer.

SirChenjin · 07/04/2015 11:34

Presumably there arent many other properties for them to rent Theoretician?

Arsenic · 07/04/2015 11:35

If she's charging more than the market rent for the quality of property, why don't the tenants move elsewhere and get more for their money? Or, more precisely, why did the tenants choose her property in the first place, if they could have got something better for the money?

Because they are very very poor and deposit, rent-in-advance and removal costs are prohibitive in a way you obviously can't imagine?

Because several unethical LLs in an area, all acting similarly will in effect function as a cartel and not leave people choices?

Theoretician · 07/04/2015 11:36

So she's just putting up rents in line with increases in housing benefit. Linking rents to a rent-price-index is a perfectly sensible thing to do. I don't know how many UK landlords do this, either implicitly or explicitly, but I think I've read that in France, where tenants generally get a better deal, with tenancies lasting several years, such increases are actually the legal default.

Arsenic · 07/04/2015 11:40

So she's just putting up rents in line with increases in housing benefit.

No. She's increasing them to the maximum permissible LHA level, which is supposed to represent the whole bottom 30% of the local rent range.

If all similar LLs do similarly it will concertina the range of rents payable locally and actually keep forcing the LHA ceiling up.

And then she will chase it again. Rinse and repeat.

Theoretician · 07/04/2015 11:59

Because they are very very poor and deposit, rent-in-advance and removal costs are prohibitive in a way you obviously can't imagine?

There's no suggestion she's lured them in with a low price then raised the price, which would be a cunning (and evil) tactic. (Raising prices in line with changes in housing benefits, i.e. the price of rents generally, is not an example of this.)

Because several unethical LLs in an area, all acting similarly will in effect function as a cartel and not leave people choices?

When people take out new tenancies, they still have the option to go for the better property. I do think it's likely that all relevant landlords will all ask for housing-benefit-level rents, as it sets a benchmark for what they hope to achieve, but they will still be in competition on quality of what they provide for that rent. I don't think there can be an informal collusion on shitness of quality, given that quality is somewhat subjective anyway?

If there is not enough housing for there to be effective competition on quality, then presumably we need more landlords to come and "exploit" housing benefit. If there is more than enough housing, then I'd rather the landlords with the worst housing raised the quality, instead of cutting prices to compete. My impression is even the fairly priced housing isn't that nice.

I accept competition won't ever be perfect. I'm just sceptical that people are making huge excess profits. To use an example for up-thread, someone charging £600 for a property worth £500 is being talked about as though they are making £600 more than they deserve, when in fact the excess is only £100.

Arsenic · 07/04/2015 12:02

There's no suggestion she's lured them in with a low price then raised the price, which would be a cunning (and evil) tactic. (Raising prices in line with changes in housing benefits, i.e. the price of rents generally, is not an example of this.)

Who said there was? It is justthat people who are unemployed and seriously skint do not have the funds needed to vote with their feet.

You asked 'why don't they just move?' I answered.

SirChenjin · 07/04/2015 12:06

Agree Arsenic. There are many areas where rental properties are like hens teeth - not a case of simply moving. Surely that's obvious?

Theoretician · 07/04/2015 12:06

If all similar LLs do similarly it will concertina the range of rents payable locally and actually keep forcing the LHA ceiling up.

If rents are 30th percentile, then what may happen is that rents that would have been cheaper go up to that level, but the level itself won't be forced up.

Looking at it strictly from an arithmetic point of view, changes in rents of the 30% worse properties has no effect on the cost of properties in the 31st or higher percentiles. Perhaps someone could make an economic argument why there would be a link. (I don't have enough brain-cycles to devote to this now, I'm supposed to be working.)

TheChandler · 07/04/2015 12:08

SirChenjin I disagree. Rent controls do work in other countries - and whilst I don't think they are the only answer they are one option that I think should be used (as well as others)

Rent controls don't tend to go along with landlords providing much in the way of standards and services, unless they are state owned concerns or charities not set up to make profits. Rent controls tend to only work in countries which have tenants staying for long periods in properties they basically treat as their own, and that tends to mean paying or doing the maintenance, decoration, etc themselves. That's what happens in The Netherlands. The standard of privately rented housing in The Netherlands can be pretty appalling, and most of it simply wouldn't be allowed by HMO Regulations here. It costs far too much to provide the higher standard of rented housing for rent controls to work - you either have one or the other.

Even in Germany, tenants are expected to do far more for themselves. And because so many people rent, once you get a nice property (which can mean a one bedroom flat as opposed to a studio), you hang onto it because its so difficult to find something else. More likely, you will end up living in a tower block on the outskirts for a few years as your first rental, desperately scanning the papers every Friday for something better. And if theres something wrong with your "dream" 1 bed, you don't complain about it, because you know how lucky you are to have it.

Dont forget there are many LLs who arent in negative equity - letting is a profitable business for plenty of them. Simply building more houses just isn't the answer.

We talk about 5-8% as being quite a good profit margin in rental property. That's easily lost, and often doesn't mean much after tax is deducted if they are higher rate taxpayers. There are plenty of landlords who are subsidising rental properties from their own money, just to use it as a pension for their futures, particularly when you take voids into account. I think any substantial rejigging of the market might result in a property crash. Look at what happened in Ireland.

I agree re the massive new housebuilding. Who buys these 5 bed detacheds at £500,000 plus? I think much of the problem is zoning and our planning system favouring big developers. If we had more self build, it would encourage people to do more for themselves as well as save money. Strangely enough, in countries like Denmark and Belgium, a lot of people do tend to do far more in their own homes whereas I think many Brits would simply pay someone to do the same thing. Again, our legislation encourages that.

Theoretician · 07/04/2015 12:16

You asked 'why don't they just move?' I answered.

I anticipated you objection when I wrote the original post, that's why I went on to point out the choice could be made before they moved in in the first place. No-one said she lured them in, I was just anticipating the next possible objection.

There are many areas where rental properties are like hens teeth - not a case of simply moving.

Then the problem is that there aren't enough landlords "exploiting" housing benefit. We need more so that tenants can have a choice.

SirChenjin · 07/04/2015 12:43

We do need more rental properties - but we need more of the right type and the right price. There is nothing to be gained by concreting over green belt to build more housing to allow more developers and LLs to make more profit. As it is, we're not at that stage so to simply claim people should just move when the infrastructure is not in place is not a constructive argument.

SirChenjin · 07/04/2015 12:49

Sorry Chandlet - just scrolled down and saw your post. I agree with much of what you say, but rent controls do work in other countries - and the current situation that we have here does not go anywhere near far enough to guarantee tenants live in good quality properties. On phone and trying to hold a conversation with DD as well as type - hopefully getting across the gist of what I'm trying to say!