To accept tenants with DLA?

[thatverynightinmaxsroom]

I'm a LL of an inherited property, not a professional landlord, and I'm really very ignorant about this.

I've been asked if I'd accept a tenant whose rent would be paid directly by DLA.

Is there any reason I wouldn't or shouldn't accept?!

*Not one person has said that. A couple have said their mum rented out the family home at less than market rent or such like, but didn't clarify what that was. Could be a tenner a month for all we know.

The differences between social housing levels of rent and private rents in this part of the world are about 3x. Show me one private landlord who's renting out at a third of the price s/he could be making, rather than exploiting people for all they're worth, and I'll eat my hat*

I did and you totally ignored it. My tenants pay the same as the few council tenants left locally do.

Other landlords charge £150-200 a month more for a comparable place, two particularly bad ones charge more still.

They have a much higher turnover over of tenants, longer voids, more damage and are extremely short sighted imo.

The reason landlords do this is because THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE MORE MONEY THAN LESS MONEY.

Nobody is evil for wanting more money for themselves and their families. It sucks for people who can't afford the rent, but these houses are the PROPERTY of the landlord and they can choose who they rent it to and how much they charge.

The reason landlords do this is because THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE MORE MONEY THAN LESS MONEY.

Which makes them exploitative, profiting at the expense of other people simply for the right to have a roof over their heads.

Nobody is evil for wanting more money for themselves and their families. It sucks for people who can't afford the rent, but these houses are the PROPERTY of the landlord and they can choose who they rent it to and how much they charge.

Who said it's anything to do with affording the rent? It has nothing to do with affording it. Housing benefit would have paid the lot, in my case. The issue was landlords deciding that was beneath them. Discrimination, pure and simple.

You don't have a right to have THEIR roof over your head though. That's my point. Benefits don't always come through as they should, there are delays and sanctions. Why should they choose you over someone who earns a lot and doesn't live month to month?

Devils advocate or not, people want to make a profit. The same way that shops make a profit on food and clothes which are basic needs. That is how the world works. People want to make profit for themselves and their own families and I think that prioritising your family over strangers makes perfect sense.

Show me one private landlord who's renting out at a third of the price s/he could be making, rather than exploiting people for all they're worth, and I'll eat my hat.

I can only think of one example, having been in private rentals for many, many years. My parents rented our old family home for many years at less than half the market value (Edinburgh city centre), on the proviso it went to a family in need. As in a family who were down on their luck, or working hard to try and save for their kids futures, or on disability benefits and would have no other way of affording a house like that. They did it because it was their way of paying it forward after they received a lot of help from family when we were kids (my brother and I). The lettings agent was staggered and tried to talk them out of it, and out of covering the ridiculously high fees the agent was demanding. But that's one example among many who use tenants as a cash cow.

Devils advocate or not, people want to make a profit.

Yes, and you think that's OK. I do not. I think it's completely amoral when it's depriving people of a roof over their head. End of.

Dolcezza - Why would you rent to someone on benefits over someone who is working full time? Properties are in demand so landlords often have their pick of tenants.

dolcezza99 I expect you have as much hatred towards supermarkets who don't sell at cost price as you have towards private LL, correct?
What about private schools, do you despise them because they cost more than council run schools?

Dolcezza99 - I rented my house out for around £150pcm less than market rent for the last 12-18 months. You wouldn't have got an equivalent property for any less than that at HB/social housing rates in that area, trust me.

Presumably if private rents are three times HB/social housing rents in your area, you live in a very expensive/popular area - I'm guessing a popular part of London? In which case many/most tenants who don't receive HB would also struggle to rent there! I'm not sure how fair or reasonable it is to expect a landlord to rent out a property to you at 1/3 of market rate in an area that plenty of non-subsidised tenants couldn't afford to rent either....

You might have found it less of a struggle if you'd been willing to relocate to a cheaper/less prestigious area. Not a judgement, just a statement of fact.

What about private schools, do you despise them because they cost more than council run schools?

I despise anything that means the rich have access to better services based on having money. It creates a divide.

I wonder if our ranter works for expenses only, given that profit is so evil?

If being wealthy didn't get you better things then nobody would work as doctors, lawyers, surgeons, dentists etc because what would the point be? You wouldn't get anything back after all of your hard work.

We've just began renting out our house. We bought it just over a year ago and thought we'd spend many many years there.

And then DH got transferred. We didn't want to lose the house that we loved so mum so instead of selling we're renting. The rent is almost £200 more than the mortgage. However we do not make a profit. Between agency fees and insurances we won't be making any money. However we do get to keep the house. So that's enough for us.

No I wouldn't rent to those on DSS.

You think I'm vile? Lol as if I care. I think you're bitter and angry. But like you I'm just a stranger on the internet.

I love that anyone with any good points about landlords gets totally ignored.

Unless of course you are busy eating your hat...

quercuscircus

My intention was not to be rude. My intention was to be facetious. Just for clarity. LL is not "extra" cover. LL insurance is completely different to home insurance in the same way motor insurance in different. It's u/w in a different way and the risks are different. It's a specific type of insurance.

The moral argument about whether or not insurers and lenders allow HB tenants is different. As stated below I think it's shit that HB tenants are excluded purely because they claim HB. It's a discussion that needs to be handled by government. However considering the money they get from IPT on insurance premiums alone I doubt anything will change quickly.

The real problem is not enough social housing has been built. That problem has been going on since before my time. Hating private LL for a problem created by consecutive Tory and Labour governments is short sighted IMHO.

Harher if anyone in receipt of HB has a form of part time employment then I don't see insurers declining cover. Personally I think people with a disability who are provided a suitable well maintained property would probably make excellent long term tenants. After all the odds of people with disabilities getting a property seem to be stacked against them. Insurers look at risk (they are all in the business of making profit) and they u/w based on that. HB is a risk some don't seem to want to take on. It sounds cold but that's how it is right now. Unfortunately I don't see that changing in the short term.

I think that while dolcezza has been lashing out in a hurtful way she is doing so from a position of extreme disenfranchisement and to compare her attitude to landlords to those same landlords' attitudes to people with disabilities is missing that crucial point of her situation. When you have the kind of inequality where one person has spare houses and another is unable to be housed adequately, you are obviously going to get resentment and anger. That is what poverty and inequality in particular breed, not a generation of genuflecting Tiny Tims. If you don't like being confronted with it, perhaps put your energy into rectifying the situation rather than pissing all over someone at the bottom of the heap.

And what of those who don't have a "spare house" but are renting out to keep hold of their property with the intention to live in it again in the future? Someone who goes to work abroad for a couple of years, perhaps? Or someone who outgrows their property due to having kids, can't afford to move up the ladder, wants to keep a foot on the ladder and maybe move back to that house in the future so they've got a roof of their own to retire to? Or people who own a property they rent out in a cheaper area, and then live (renting) themselves in a more expensive area, where they have no hope of buying, but still want to hang on to the property, so they have somewhere to retire to one day?

I know people for whom all three of those categories above would apply. These are not hypothetical scenarios I've plucked out of thin air to be contrary. Your assumption that all landlords are privileged people with "spare houses" is simply not true.

I will happily treat lack of social housing as a priority issue when I decide who to vote for, and then hold politicians to account when election promises on this point are unfulfilled. If you are a landlord, you obviously have an obligation to treat your tenants fairly, and that in my view means giving them more than the two measly months notice the law requires (really, I think landlords should honour the entire duration of an assured shorthold tenancy. Tenants quitting tenancies early is different as it is generally much easier to find a new tenant than a new flat!) As a private individual, and not a housing association, that's where your moral obligation in this situation begins and ends, I'm afraid. I don't think it extends to asking people to ignore guidance from letting agents about which tenants do/don't pass their affordability criteria, or expecting them to accept below market rent in locations where HB wouldn't cover full market rent, or taking out more expensive mortgage products/landlords' insurance policies just in case one of your future applicants for a tenancy at your property happens to be on benefits.

PS nobody is "pissing all over someone at the bottom of the heap", all we are doing is repeatedly asking someone to stop calling us vile, disgusting, money grabbing scum, wishing bankruptcy on us and telling us to fuck off and die! Which, let's be honest, is hardly unreasonable.

zebra I have no idea whay you would be facetious towards me? (which is being rude) You know nothing about me or my education.

You stated what the insurance sitaution was when you worked for whoever you worked for.

I had put forward the current information I received from one insurer, Direct Line, and was asking whether that meant you thought that Direct Line were lying to me on the phone and lying on their website. As I said, if you think that is the case, then that is quite serious. You only replied with information from the past... and your rudeness.

Re LL rent insurance being an 'extra'; anything beyond the legal requirement to have building insurance is an 'extra' eg rent guarantee insurance. That is what I was referring to and what many of the posts were discussing.

It is so sad (yet predictable) how this thread has gone. We all play a role in society and unlike being disabled, being a LL is a choice and a preference that succeeds by controlling and trading a finite resource as if it were a commodity not a basic human need, so what you do and how you do it is on your conscience.

Oh look! My tiny uneducated stoopid brain seems thinks things that other people think too - imagine that Zebra

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/feb/28/un-report-lays-bare-the-waste-of-treating-homes-as-commodities

I think that while dolcezza has been lashing out in a hurtful way she is doing so from a position of extreme disenfranchisement and to compare her attitude to landlords to those same landlords' attitudes to people with disabilities is missing that crucial point of her situation.

Sorry no excuse. What she said is completely indefensible.

If you don't like being confronted with it, perhaps put your energy into rectifying the situation rather than pissing all over someone at the bottom of the heap.

They knew nothing about the posters they were being vile to. Nothing at all.

Thevoieof

If your scenario of moving for work and letting out the old house with the intention to return was the majority of the LL market with most tenants being in that same position, and home ownership not in overall decline then there would probably not be much of a problem with it.

However a mortgage that allows someone who has got a foot on the ladder to keep it and have another house elsewhere whilst that mortgage is paid off by a renter, is great for you but stops someone else being able to buy that house and get their foot on the ladder.

If there was no such mortgage available (and mortgages were not so easily available on previous decased) to you you would have to sell up and so would lots of other people leading to more houses on the market, an increase in supply leads to lower sale prices.

If there was no housing shortage and it were easier to buy a house you would not find a tenant so easily (or for so much money) and so you would likely not be offered a mortgage since it would not be profitable for the bank to offer such mortgages.

So I can see your perspective entirely since you benefit from it, but you must see that in being able to keep your property and live elsewhere, that is a circumstance that you fortunate to be able to maintain and have lucked into (not earned) because the banks find it profitable to lend on BTLs because of the housing shortage, and so it is a privilege when some people cannot even have one house, through no fault of their own. If I were in that position I would feel extrememly grateful and fortunate.

People get upset when that situation is taken for granted rather than appreciated as being something 'special' that allows you to maintain and improve your wealth, largely based on the fact that there is a housing crisis and massive and increasing social inequality.

Some people are very upset and angry of course and I don't condone rudeness, but maybe if you lived their life then you might feel the same. And some people are just nasty regardless of their circumstances.

quercuscircus

I didn't question your education or intellect. You are clearly passionate about this and you would like things to change. I do very much question your understanding of the insurance risk industry. I don't need to google articles written earlier this year to make my point. I know google is used a lot on MN. I generally don't subscribed to googling to validate what I say. I know how the industry works. It's also best to read industry related publications to get a better understanding of the industry. Insurance Times is a good one to start with. If people want to know what happens in the industry. That's a good place to start. With regards the information I have shared regarding Directline u/w stance on HB. Unless their u/w position has changed since June/July of this year then my points stand. BTW I worked for RBS Insurance. They own Directline along with a number of other general insurers.

One way to get the btl stock down would be to raise interest rates. Dippydrawers carney doesn't get that outside London, houses can be bought for cash by quite a few people. With interest rates so low, the risk and possible unpleasantness of being a landlord is the only way to preserve the value of savings.

I do think a lot of the time it's forgotten that not all ll's are btl ll's who are making oodles of money renting out damp mouldy properties whilst not giving a fuck about the tenant.

Am I privileged because I don't have a mortgage in my home and inherited my grandparents house? To some I would be. To me it's a reminder of how fragile life is - our house isn't mortgaged because DH was widowed in his 20's and my grandparents left me their flat because they took me from my abusuve parents. Hardly born with silver spoons in our mouths.

I won't sell my grandparents flat because I know who will buy it. The kind of ll I think there needs to be more legislation against.

It's pretty annoying to be labelled in the same category.

lalala could you not put the flat on the market and tell the estate agents that you want to vet the prospective purchasers, then you could make sure you were selling it to an owner-occupier rather than landlord? Surely you as the vendor call the shots, if you tell the EA this they would have to follow your instructions?

I appreciate there may be reasons I don't know about why this wouldn't happen, but it sounds feasible to me?