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?!

"Private landlords aren't housing associations."

This is the problem with housing in this country in a nutshell. Provision of shelter has been handed over wholesale to a group who are about as well regulated as your average gang master and who have even less of a clue as to the few responsibilities they have. Look at the OP - clueless as to how the mechanism through which she will be getting public funds works, completely unaware of how disability adaptations come into play, no notion of either her or her prospective tenant's rights, but she's got a spare house so she's good to go. Almost a quarter of households in this country now depend on shelter from people who don't know their arse from their elbow and who will sell up as soon as the price rises. It's all gone to cock.

My current tenants are long term HB claimants. I actually find those in receipt of HB better tenants because so few lls will take them.

Speak to the tenants. Mine will be on benefits for life because of a health issue. They are hard working honest people in a bad situiation and they are no less likely to pay their rent than anyone else (my worst tenant was a fucking highly paid guy with a great job - he was just an entitled git).

If your mortgage and insurance allows it then it can be a longer, more stable tenant, but like every tenant you have to speak to them and gauge their individual circumstance.

ifs mights and subject to are very vague. I wonder how many tenants they've actually insured on DLA

Having a guarantor can mitigate a some of the financial concerns - in the same way that a lower earner might need a guarantor. This can be difficult for some disabled people for example those whose parents are retired and without huge pensions. But it is an option.

DopeyDazy nope, I was asked if I wanted a quote. It is more than possible. Seems the reluctance and scepticism is on the LLs part.

I would avoid renting to people on benefits. Not because I'm a monster who hates the disabled or anything like that, but because I know benefit payments don't always go through and problems take a long time to rectify. I would minimise the risk as much as possible and rent to people that work full time.

Plus many landlords are not allowed to rent to people on benefits anyway.

as my tenant carried on when bought property haven't had to find out. They are on pension so stable and only have basic insurance at £160 this year without rent guarantee but useful to know if we relet. Property was adapted with council grant so ideal for less able tenant

dopeydazy it is good to hear that you have found the info useful. There are so many harmful myths surrounding this issue.

Disabled tenants could qualify for help or support with managing a tenancy (if they need it) so even less reason to worry.

I'm sure you would have lots of people queueing up to take your adapted house.

Nancy rationally assessing risk is one thing, assuming risk based on prejudice and ignorance is quite another.

@quercuscircus I was responding VERY SPECIFICALLY to the two posters above who said you shouldn't become a landlord at all if you can't afford the risk of not getting the rent in on your property at some point. One of whom also mentioned in the same post the fact that there aren't enough social housing properties any more so where are these people supposed to live?

It's not exactly a massive leap of imagination to suggest that that poster was suggesting that if you can't afford to run the risk of your tenant not paying their rent at some point you shouldn't become a landlord at all because there isn't enough social housing.

So you are in fact completely wrong. The poster I was addressing directly was implying that landlords should be in a position financially to do exactly that.

Christ! Some of the ignorant shite being posted on this thread is shocking! Thank goodness for those who actually know what they're talking about.

beepbeepwhatever go and educate yourself or don't post when you clearly haven't a fucking clue what you're on about.

@AnneGrommit - are you seriously comparing my ethics to a gang master?! Because I said that as a private individual I shouldn't have been forced to act like a Housing Association is my tenant stopped paying their rent, I'm now akin to a gang master?!

My tenants were NOT out of a home when I sold the house. I mentioned to them when they last renewed their tenancy that it would be the last time unfortunately as I'd just got married and my husband and I would be looking to buy in the future, so I would need to sell in order to take the equity out so we had a deposit. They were fine with this, and actually started looking for somewhere else sooner rather than later so that they wouldn't have to just take whatever they could get when the time came. They ended up finding somewhere else half way through the tenancy so THEY gave ME notice to quit early, and thanked me for the fact that I'd given them plenty of notice of my plans so they were able to arrange things on their own time.

So not exactly "made homeless" by my actions, as you are trying to suggest. Stop trying to make me out to be a monster!

Oh and they weren't hard to pay my mortgage as you so snarkily put it. They were working to pay their own rent. Which didn't even fully cover my mortgage, I paid an extra £100 pcm on top of their rent to supplement it. And I never once put their rent up in the 7 years I lived there, because they paid their rent on time and were no trouble, so I was happy to maintain the status quo. For at least the last 12 months, probably 18 months, I could have got an extra £100-150pcm if I'd not been willing to renew the tenancy at the same rate, so for a good period they were getting it comfortably below market rate.

Sorry, but no rent is a risk, whatever the source of the tenants income. Also tenants move on and there may be a void, which is never insurable. Landlords need to cope.

Rent guarantee insurance is paid in arrears (tenants pay in advance). A sufficiently robust cashflow is needed.

Screaming about harsh truths doesn't change them.

The gang master comment is truly tragic. No arguing with stupid, or those who think it is all still run by rachmann.

thevoice I think waht people are saying is that no business is exempt from all risk or from non-payment and that landlords need to factor rent free periods into their business model/ cash flow forecast just like any other successful business.

If the margins are so tight that you need 100% occupation then that is probably going to be a cause for concern - imagine if that were a hotel. 100% occupation should be a target and the minimum occupation/ break even point would be lower, and the realistic acheiveable target somewhere in between. All shops expect a degree of shoplifting or returns etc. Builders/ plumbers/ mechanics will have have to absorb unpaid bills from time to time. It happens.

If you cannot absorb less then 100% then you should probably sell the business (the property). You can, you might not want to but you can. Unlike disabled people who cannot become undisabled at will.

So the thing is that you and other LLs may find that some tenants cause problems with non-payment, but not all will and unless you have the statsitcs to prove that disabled tenants are a demonstrably higher risk than other people and this cannot be offset, you are unfairly (immorally) and ilegally discriminating against vulnerable and protected group.

I've been a LL for more than 10 years and you don't, imo, get any more hassle with tenants on benefits than you do other tenants. That's generally the opinion of everyone on the LL forum I use as well.

Some people can't let because of mortgage or insurance purposes, but those that don't because they are simply prejudiced against it are actually missing one of the biggest factors in it - lots of long-term benefit claimants have a more reliable income than someone working!

Meet the tenant - actually meet them, not rely on what an agency says about paper checks - and then decide. And don't go against your instinct.

Yes, I said you were a gang master. I bet you don't have any comprehension problems when it comes to charging rent.

Private renting is pretty much unregulated. Anyone can be a landlord - a criminal, a pimp, someone with IVAs coming out of their arse. For this class of people to clutch their pearls at the prospect of someone claiming disability benefit while they pay off the mortgage for a spiv waiting for the next house price rise is laughable.

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.

@jojo2916, do you have a link to these statistics please? I can't find them ...

@quercuscircus thank you for more the more reasoned response.

Yes, tbh it was a constant source of worry when my first tenant stopped paying his rent and I couldn't afford it. With hindsight, I should have maybe called my mortgage lender and arranged a payment holiday (as I already had enough years of good payment history that realistically it would have been approved) so I probably had that option, albeit I didn't know it at the time.

Btw I NEVER said I wouldn't rent to a disabled tenant, and nor would I ever say that. I said a tenant on benefits, and by that I meant exclusively on benefits, no other income. A working tenant who also happened to get DLA who met my letting agent's eligibility criteria (passed credit test, passed affordability test etc) I would have been fine with. If you read my first post on this thread, it's all about affordability criteria. Letting agents generally want 3 - 3.5x rent. Most applicants whose sole income is benefit will not have this, unfortunately.

Hahahahaha @AnneGrommit I can assure you I'm not a criminal. Or a pimp. No IVAs. Good credit rating.

I love how literally the only point I made that you responded to was the gang master one, and completely ignored the explanation I'd given as to why your suggestion that me selling my house left a family without a home was inaccurate (and actually kind of insulting, tbh).

I didn't say you'd called me a gang master, either. I said you appeared to be comparing my ethics to those a gang master, or saying that I am akin to a gang master. Akin meaning "of similar character".

At literally no point did I say you'd called me a gang master.

Perhaps you shouldn't be calling out my comprehension when you haven't bothered to read posts correctly yourself.

Provision of shelter has been handed over wholesale to a group who are about as well regulated as your average gang master

Yeah that's just what they're like

Nothing like being overly dramatic is there.

Landlords are largely unregulated. This is not headline news or controversial. Anyone can get a spare house and call themselves a landlord, including criminals. What have I said that is inaccurate?

I think the bit where you described us as being even more clueless as to our responsibilities than gang masters are, and stated that a quarter of as don't know our arses from our elbows was probably the offensive bit, Anne.

Not to mention you falsely accusing me of making a family homeless (nice) when my original post on this thread stated "and then when they were ready to leave I sold the house", and then not apologising for giving any late comers to this thread the impression that I'd booted them out on the street, even when I clarified with the full explanation of what happened. And then to top it off you called me a spiv.

So yeah, you've said plenty on here that's inaccurate actually Anne!

Ohnoes the protected class of landlords are offended.

I'd agree with that - more legislation for landlords needs to put in place. Or the tax rules etc. adjusted so that becoming a private landlord becomes a more unappealing prospect. Not saying there are no good landlords.

Since the social housing sector has been deliberately allowed to shrink drastically over the last 2 or 3 decades, the government needs to do something. The roof over people's heads is too important to be left to the vagaries of market.

AnneGrommit
A tenant pays rent in exchange for the right to use a flat or house that belongs to someone else. What the LL chooses to do with this money is none if the tenants business, they can pay iff a mortgage or spend it on holidays or school fees etc.
Why do you have such an issue with the LL who use it to pay off a mortgage?