Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To accept tenants with DLA?

281 replies

thatverynightinmaxsroom · 14/09/2017 09:51

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?!

OP posts:
ItsAllAboutThePace · 14/09/2017 10:54

Doesn't universal credit pay all benefits to claimant......so any he will now go direct to tenant who is then supposed to use it for rent?

Sunnyshores · 14/09/2017 10:54

Check with mortgage company and Insurance agent first.

I rent my properties to the best prospective tenant and I have very few preconceptions about what makes the perfect tenant, or the imperfect tenant. Some, on paper have looked far from ideal, but Ive had some amazing tenants who have stayed long term.

Zebra31 · 14/09/2017 10:55

The thing is, benefits ARE reliable income. Much more reliable than many jobs.

The problem for LL is if someone loses their job and can't/won't pay rent they can insurer against this (loss of rent) however LL insurance companies (Directline etc) won't cover tenants not in some form of part time work. Some LL hands are tied because they won't rent without insurance and insurers won't cover unless tenant is working part time.

ItsAllAboutThePace · 14/09/2017 10:56

scary if it deteriorates and adjustments are required in the home, can a private landlord be forced to allow them/maintain them or even pay for them?

DarceyBusselsNose · 14/09/2017 10:56

A disabled person has a good regular income from the government. If their condition is long term, it's super secure.

So all the gumpff in the MSM is a pack of lies then?

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 14/09/2017 10:56

If their condition is long term, it's super secure.

Well no it isn't. Have you not read the news about DLA and PIP payments.

However the point is, no job is super secure either.

scaryclown · 14/09/2017 10:57

The risk with someone who says they are employed is that they may not be, may exaggerate their salary or not be paying tax etc and may also have large debts. They are also vulnerable to unemployment relocation or losing their job because of bad behaviour or economic fluctuations. Also people who work often have insecure work based relationships that can rely on spending one-upmanship which may be your rent money.

ItsAllAboutThePace · 14/09/2017 10:57

And benefits can't be seen as reliable with this government. I know this from the various disibility benefits threads on here alone!! Claimants are terrified of what's to come and changes made

scaryclown · 14/09/2017 11:00

Well I was just trying to balance out the monumental stupidity of people who think all disabled people are a liability, useless, lying etc.

Branleuse · 14/09/2017 11:04

Hardly any jobs are actually secure anymore either though. Pretty much the entire working class and lower middle class cannot guarantee their salary anymore, and if they can, then they WILL be looking to buy and you wont get a long term tenancy out of it. Youll be looking at finding another tenant in a year or less.

The people that NEED tenancies, just cant get them anymore. Its a massive problem

LakieLady · 14/09/2017 11:07

I have a friend desperately looking for a house and being turned down by everyone on the basis of disability and benefits being their only income. They are the nicest family and are being let down hugely by this kind of attitude sad personally I think it's discrimination and there should be laws against it.

Abso-fucking-lutely! If I won the lottery I'd look into taking a test case about this.

As if struggling with a disabling condition isn't bad enough, to then be unable to get housing because of it is adding insult to injury imo.

I'd be having a chat with them to find out a bit more, OP. Ask about their other benefits, if they're getting them, or evidence of income if they're working. You could also ask if it's a condition that is likely to require adaptations now or in the future, although you can't be forced to have your property adapted.

I think letting to tenants on benefits would be the ethical thing to do. And being on benefits doesn't mean they're any more likely to have a drop in income than anyone else. After all, anyone can get made redundant.

50ShadesOfEarlGrey · 14/09/2017 11:08

OP Check the situation with your Landlord insurance. I have just renewed our policy (inherited property, like yourself) and was heavily questioned re status of existing tenants, likely status of any future tenants etc. I didn't ask, as I didn't need to, but suspect that I would have paid more if tenants hadn't been in work.

GandolfBold · 14/09/2017 11:09

And we wonder why there is a housing crisis in this country Sad

LakieLady · 14/09/2017 11:11

*LL are refusing people who rely on benefits to pay their rent is not discriminating against disabled people.

It's not 'you can't live here because you're disabled' it's, 'you can't live here because you have no source of reliable income'.*

I beg to differ. People with long term health or disability issues are more likely to be on benefits than anyone else, so this is indirect discrimination imo.

LakieLady · 14/09/2017 11:16

Most LAs will pay HB direct to the landlord if it's a condition of the tenancy.

They don't like doing it, because it means setting up a new payee on their system, but they often will.

araiwa · 14/09/2017 11:22

I dont know if it is still the case but it used to be that if housing benefit was paid direct to the ll and it turned out there had been benefit fraud, the council used to try recover money from the ll

In my previous professional experience of managing property, dealing with benefits was a pain in the arse, often had delays in payments and not worth the hassle. We refused it for all new applicants.

While ago now tho so not sure about how benefits are done now

jojo2916 · 14/09/2017 11:24

It does seem mean not to but statistically there are far more issues with tenants who don't work than those who are employed. Of course there are fantastic tenants who claim benefits and terrible ones who work but the majority of issues are with unemployed benefit claiming tenants which is why insurance companies don't like it.

Auntiedahlia · 14/09/2017 11:29

We own some properties that we rent out. We have a very nice chap who works and also receives DLA due to his autism. He's a long term tenant and his parents are guarantors. So I've no issue with DLA.

Through bitter experience we've found that once a tenant stops paying rent, it can be months and thousand of pounds in court fees etc to evict. We are still owed over £5,000from a bad tenant a couple of years ago, and that didn't include the damage done to the house.

So, after that time we only let through an agency that offers a rent guarantee insurance scheme. We use Lettings Hub. This means that as long as the tenant passes the checks, we are covered for rent (and potential court costs etc). We have long terms lets and don't do rent increases, look after our properties and have a rolling programme for improvements so this is very important to us.

DanHumphreyIsA · 14/09/2017 11:33

I think LAs are responsible for the majority of the negativity, personally.

First of all, LAs offer little to no help to a private tenant on the verge eviction - other than if you make yourself homeless by leaving before the courts, you can't go on the housing list. This in itself creates a breakdown in the relationship between tenant and LL. Tenants agree to leave after section 21, then refuse after approaching the LA for assistance.

They also offer no cooperation with the LL, if HB has been stopped for whatever reason. This makes the tenant look like a liar. I worked for an LA in the housing dept, and had to deal with an LL who had not received rent for a year. The tenant told him HB was stopped, he was trying to be fair and reasonable, but after a year became suspicious. He said if HB had been genuinely stopped, he'd likely continue renting out to her as its not her fault. But he only had her word for it, and LA obvs couldn't confirm due to data protection.
I looked on her account (I couldn't see anything to do with HB in my role just allocations) and could see she had phoned in several times, and been given the advice to stay put regardless of what happens, and only leave if/when it all went through the courts.
I can guarantee, if that tenant did ever leave, then that LL will never rent out to a benefit claimant again, due to the loss he incurred.

Almost every landlord I know has had a similar experience with renting out to benefits claimants, whether thats because HB has been stopped or not. I think rather than them having a negative view of claimants, they just don't want to end up dealing with the LA issues.

And no, not all benefits claimants are liars, obviously. But I do think a lot of people (employed or not) have cottoned on to being able to stay in a property rent free for some time, and take advantage.

Its just that someone in employment is generally(not absolutely!) less likely to have their income stopped abruptly, unlike someone on benefits (again an LA issue, they allow no adjusting period during sanctions, but tell the tenant to stay put rent free).

Of course, there are some prejudiced landlords, but the same can be said for all categories of people with people.
Whilst some say it should be illegal to not accept tenants on benefits, I also think it should be illegal to leave landlords without rent for 3+ months, and to have the LAs support in this.

Redpony1 · 14/09/2017 11:38

However the point is, no job is super secure either
No, but if you lose your job you are able to temp straight away - thus still getting an income even if it's less. If your HB stops for some reason & you can't physically work, you're in a mess!

The risk with someone who says they are employed is that they may not be, may exaggerate their salary or not be paying tax etc and may also have large debts

It's almost impossible to lie, because you have checks done. a letter or form is completed by your employer and goes directly to the letting agency or private LL. Oh & a soft credit check is done.

steff13 · 14/09/2017 11:41

The risk with someone who says they are employed is that they may not be, may exaggerate their salary

Certainly the landlord doesn't just take the person's word for this. That would be inane.

youhavetobekidding · 14/09/2017 11:46

I'm surprised how many people admit they wouldn't consider this prospective tenant. If they've been a good tenant in their current tenancy, why not explore the possibility?

Gilead · 14/09/2017 11:46

DLA. Disability Living Allowance isnt means tested. I cant see how it would be paid direct to cover rent. That isnt the intended use of DLA
There is a starred decision going back to 1998 stating that in fact DLA can be used for the purposes of rent or mortgage.

Lougle You may want to check your figures, top whack for mobility and care combined is £564 every four weeks.

Motoko · 14/09/2017 11:47

So when payments stop for X Y Z reasons, how will they pay the rent then? I know countless people who claims benefits and payments are never a reliable source of income. It's not a risk many LL can afford to take

Shouldn't be a landlord then, if your business model can't allow for voids or late payments.

Where are all these people supposed to live? There is not enough social housing, thanks to the lack of building and Right To Buy.

CaptainAmericasShield · 14/09/2017 11:48

Sounds like the letting agent needs to do their job properly! Why are you employing them if not to vet tenants, yet they do not seem to understand the basics. I would go back to them even if you do end up researching the points as well.