I'm a landlady....

[SomeOtherGirl]

I'm going to try to word this carefully. It's to do with making different life choices but it's in a sensitive area which could imply that I'm being judgemental. I don't mean to be. I'm just wondering if this sounds normal to the ears of anonymous mumsnetters.

So we have a rental property - our old place. I will try to give as much info as possible though some probably isn't totally relevant, but people might ask otherwise :-)

A nice couple moved in and they have a baby.

The deposit was covered by the council, and the monthly rent is £600, which was to be paid by them. They are on UC - they had asked me if I minded and I answered of course not!

I am 75% sure that the guy has a job of some description as he talks about it on Facebook.

They moved in and after the first month immediately fell into arrears, with a late partial payment and then a missed payment. They are a little more than a month behind on rent.

I did some research and found that the UC people can pay us about 90% of the rent directly to us, which sounded easier for everyone so I applied for that and all has been well, aside from the outstanding rent.

We asked the tenants if they can catch up this money and they said they'd have to do so in drive and drabs. This was last autumn. They have yet to make a payment but with Christmas and then corona virus I didn't push it. UC said we could apply to have it taken out from their other benefits in small chunks but I think the debt needs to equate to two months for this.

So now there are some bits and bobs to do maintenance wise so we've been looking at that and working out how to sort them out.

In the conversation, we asked if they'd be able now to start repaying the arrears as it would help with sorting out the maintenance bits. They said they could only do £10 a month as they have to pay for other stuff - namely Sky which they have at £90 a month.

I was really surprised at this. We rely on this rent as an income. I'm not able to work at present and we live modestly. I know people tend to think of their landlord as being Mr megabucks but it's not like that with us. We have netflix at 5.99 a month and thats the extent of our entertainment luxuries.

I'm just surprised that a lovely couple who get their housing costs covered plus additional benefits - and a job - see repaying this rent debt as so low priority.

Am I a bit mad? Should I sell the place?
I've not got cross with them or anything about it by the way. But I am wondering if I should sell it. They wanted me to come change a lightbulb recently. I think they've also moved an older step child in, which is fine I guess But they didn't mention it.

I try to be a really considerate landlady as far as I can but it's never going to be a perfect situation.

Just wondering what your thoughts are ? Obviously not planning on evicting them over this.

@Undercovermuvver

So you are making money out of other taxpayers by taking UC. I don’t care if you don’t get a bean to be honest. Why the bloody hell should I pay your rent!

They’re taking the absolute piss. It’s people like this who make it so difficult for other people on benefits to get housing. People like them are the reason I get doors shut in my face and phones put down on me, even though I’ve got an impeccable renting record stretching back years.

Honestly I’d tell them they need to sort out their finances and pay back their rent arrears. If they refuse or make excuses serve them sec 21, or sec 8 if they’re far enough behind.

I can’t believe the bloody nerve, telling you they can’t pay back what they owe while announcing they pay all that money for Sky. They sound like entitled irresponsible twats.

Oh, and send them an email reminding them of their responsibilities contained in their tenancy agreement. Asking you to change a light bulb indeed. I’m embarrassed for them.

@JeSuisPoulet

What kind of maintenance does it need? You might be better of seeing if they know someone who can do it and they sort it out directly? It would involve you checking they are actual traders obviously and checking them out, but you might find this is an easier solution.

I wouldn't begrudge them Sky, it will be for the footy or sports and they aren't alone in UK in thinking it is the most important utility bill. I don't have it either but largely because I do not like sport in any shape or form!

Upkeeping properties is expensive if done properly. You will have years of this ahead with maybe a year or two in between if you are lucky with nothing, then a big one. FWIW it sounds as if this is just too much for them to cover in a lump but they are willing and have paid otherwise.

I've had bad tenants before and they break everything, pretend they paid or that money is "just coming", try to spin tall tales and act the victim constantly. It doesn't sound like these guys are, they are just caught in a situation where they don't have "extra" to make up for the debt.

They do have extra but they are choosing not to pay for their debts. They are creating their situation

@Undercovermuvver

So you are making money out of other taxpayers by taking UC. I don’t care if you don’t get a bean to be honest. Why the bloody hell should I pay your rent!

Omg lol! 🤣

Your problem is more with the benefits system then.

Go speak to your local MP.

@MargotMoon she isn’t making money off the state.

By providing rental accommodation she’s allowing the state to avoid the cost of providing of their own rentable accommodation which allows the state to avoid the land purchase, build cost, interest charges thereupon, maintenance, legal costs, management costs, rent arrears risk, and damage risk... if the state preferred to pay that themselves, they could slap taxes on landlords to price them out of it.

I do agree with your comments that sometimes it’s not easy to get out of Sky or it may make a huge difference in quality of life if you do.

But that doesn’t apply to these pisstakers who spent the rent on a birthday party! In this case, UC fit for purposeness did not cause arrear. The tenants stealing the UC payment from the landlord did.

@Capr1

OP, I’m sorry but you sound way too nice and I’ve no idea why you’re making excuses for these people.

There is a reason they are on UC, “Oh, the landlady won’t mind as long as she gets 90% of the rent,” could just as easily be, “Oh work won’t mind if I turn up a few hours late - they should be happy I’m there for 90% of the shift....” Some people are takers, basically. They will push as far as they can as they think life (and everyone in it, including you) owes them something and / or should accommodate them.

Er no, They are leeches with totally selfish and skewed priorities. Sky TV indeed. You are paying for that - and other taxpayers. If he is working, then he is guilty of fraud.

You need to start the eviction process, I’m afraid. Don’t take this kind of tenant again.

Actually, the OP said that one of the tenants is working. So they are taxpayers.

By your own logic the OP is taking 'your' taxes by accepting a UC tenant. So get off your high horse.

I don't see where OP says they have extra?
They pay (possibly slightly over the odds) for one utility that people on here are claiming is somehow luxury. They aren't driving a flashy car or having meals out all over the place. Would everyone rather they sit and stare at a wall every day and night or go out and get into trouble? Milk of human kindness this thread!

@Ellisandra if the govt hadn't sold off it's council houses it would be able to accommodate more people far cheaper.

I am also a LL (again, my old flat). The "we can't change a lightbulb" I thought was just new graduates who've always lived in halls but maybe not! They complained we hadn't provided a ladder (flat was not furnished).
Watch out for people moving in, the stepchild will be fine but "bloke's mate who's had a row with the wife" could turn it into an HMO.

[quote Ellisandra]@MargotMoon she isn’t making money off the state.

By providing rental accommodation she’s allowing the state to avoid the cost of providing of their own rentable accommodation which allows the state to avoid the land purchase, build cost, interest charges thereupon, maintenance, legal costs, management costs, rent arrears risk, and damage risk... if the state preferred to pay that themselves, they could slap taxes on landlords to price them out of it.

I do agree with your comments that sometimes it’s not easy to get out of Sky or it may make a huge difference in quality of life if you do.

But that doesn’t apply to these pisstakers who spent the rent on a birthday party! In this case, UC fit for purposeness did not cause arrear. The tenants stealing the UC payment from the landlord did.[/quote]

You may think she's doing the state a favour. That's the same logic that the government are using to drive public money into private hands, eg outsourcing NHS services to commercial organisations.

I'm not having a go at the OP personally, she seems reasonable, but at the end of the day she's paying her mortgage using public funds and then complaining about the shitty benefits system getting her tenants in to arrears.

Plus they did the birthday party thing which was a bit stupid 🤦🏻‍♀️ I'm just trying to add some perspective and encourage empathy amongst us.

If they are receiving 90% of their rent costs then I can guarantee that they are not paying tax

My sky package is only GBP17 per month (Sky Q but no sport), after a bit of haggling.

Absolute piss takers

You don’t need to get rid of the property just your tenants

Get some advice and start eviction process
And hope to god they don’t destroy your property on the way out

[Insurance] needs to be double checked. My tenant is working, but is on UC. My insurance is fine, but some class UC as a benefit and don't cover.

Yes you still need to check but since the ruling that it's unlawful discrimination for a landlord to refuse to rent to benefits claimants, I'm not sure if such insurance terms are enforceable any more.

I would wait until the end of the tenancy (let's hope you have this rented under an AST) and say you won't be renewing. If they don't leave at the end of the tenancy you have a much stronger claim to get them out.

While this is good advice, it doesn't make all that much difference. If the landlord and tenant don't sign a new fixed-term tenancy it simply converts to a periodic tenancy. Tenant can end it with 1 month's notice (unless a contract says longer), LL can end it with (currently) 3 month's for an S21 eviction.

Clearly as a landlord, if you have a bad tenant you shouldn't offer them a new fixed-term contract! To be honest LLs used to like tenants to sign new contracts in order to collect fees each time, but now that such fees are banned I'm not sure there's much advantage to the landlord in doing so.

If UC is paying 90% of their rent, then surely you should be receiving at least 90% of the rent amount each month?

I don't get it - are they keeping money they are given specifically to pay their rent?

Why should that be acceptable (unless there's a valid explanation)?

It's been going on for ages! When we rented, if we'd missed a single month all hell would have broken out.

Obviously not planning on evicting them over this

Why not, they're stealing from you every month they can't be bothered to pay rent. They have broken any contract you had with them by refusing to pay, sadly the hand-wringers will take their side and the law is an ass regarding defaulting tenents.

@JeSuisPoulet oh I completely agree! And I think it beggars belief that Right To Buy still goes on. I think it’s an absolute scandal.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think the “affordable” rental sector should be left to private landlords. I’d happily see higher taxes on second homes - on the income, on the purchase - to reduce that sector.

But I think it’s unfair to say landlords are taking money from taxpayers, when it’s the government’s fault there isn’t enough housing.

I’m not against private landlords.
My boyfriend was one when he lost his job and had to move. His house was all he could afford to buy, on a pretty rough estate. It was hard to even get DHSS (as it was) tenants because the estate was so shit the council had empty properties on it. He let it for peanuts to a woman on HB because it was better with a tenant than empty - where it was likely to be used by druggies and trashed. The woman trashed it, as it happened, and pocketed all but the first month of HB. Still, it was better than druggies taking over, so he didn’t evict. He even had a letter saying he was a scum landlord as the walls were mouldy (her lack of care of the house). All this time, we were missing meals and - because we couldn’t afford to put heating on for long - living with ice on the inside of the windows in our rental in the town where he had work. There are plenty of “accidental” landlords.

I would love to see big restrictions on private landlords. I’d like to see second homes not held by a company treated more generously due to the accidental landlord situation. But I’d only like to see those restrictions if the government stepped up with a full programme that built more social housing AND allowed mortgages to enable owner occupiers to buy the newly empty private landlord owned properties.

@MargotMoon I like your empathy. I’m often on your side of the fence over this! But I’ve been on the wrong side of tenants not paying - doesn’t matter if they’re receiving benefits or not - so I’m not automatically on that side. In this case, the reason for rent arrears if nothing to do with the benefit system and everything to do with tenant greed.

My own sister once got 5 months rent arrears paid to her after the benefit office kept fucking up. Her landlord was bloody lovely - I think he was a good man, but also I think he knew how useless the system was, so figured waiting was better than potentially going through it all again. He wouldn’t have guessed it would be 5 months! When my sister received the arrears, she paid him the last month and kept 4, “well he’s a landlord so he’s minted.” We didn’t speak for some time after that! Just one example (3 with the OP’s tenants, and my boyfriend’s that I posted about). It’s not a benefits recipient thing... it’s an arsehole thing.

I don’t want the government to drive public money into private hands. I posted about that as well. But whilst they are - it’s not fair to say landlords are taking taxpayer’s money, without netting that against what they are saving the taxpayer via the government’s short sighted immoral housing policies.
(and no, I’m not a landlord though I was for one year, 20 years ago, when I worked abroad for a year)

Agents are best, I know

I'm not sure if people on this page are expecting me to refuse to house a tenant who is in receipt of benefits, on the grounds that those benefits originally came from tax payers...? If benefits cannot be spent on housing, what can they be spent on?

A lot of people's earnings come directly or indirectly from taxpayers. Everyone who works in the public sector for example.

But the original question was is it weird to prioritise a £90 sky package over rent arrears.

I don't begrudge them sky. I just think it weird that they spend so much on it and try to tell me they can only afford to repay their arrears in instalments over the next 70 months, and even weirder that they actually told me that they are paying so much for sky.

By the way if I didn't have this little bit of rent coming in, I'd most likely be on some kind of benefits myself since I'm unable to work atm.

Sets my teeth on edge when I hear things like this. I am on benefits and my highest priority is my rent. It always gets paid, on-time, every month. I have a very good relationship with my landlord and I'm not ruining that.

I used to work as a housing benefit officer , before I had to give up work to look after my autistic son. There is an option where you can apply for a time limited extra amount if your rent is higher than your benefit and you are struggling

Obviously, you have to prove that you genuinely cannot make the extra payments, which means bringing in all your bank statements for the previous 2 months.

I used to see Sky and other TV subscriptions, payments to gambling Websites, expenditure on non essential items, like in one instance payment for a very expensive holiday I couldn't afford. They also had to bring in shopping receipts and there would frequently be alcohol and cigarette purchases.

Obviously not everyone did this and there were genuine instances of extreme circumstances that we were happy to help.

Still annoys me to this day.

@MrsKypp

If UC is paying 90% of their rent, then surely you should be receiving at least 90% of the rent amount each month?

I don't get it - are they keeping money they are given specifically to pay their rent?

Why should that be acceptable (unless there's a valid explanation)?

It's been going on for ages! When we rented, if we'd missed a single month all hell would have broken out.

They kept it for the first couple of months, one partial payment then one missed payment. After that I asked UC to pay me directly, which they have done.

Fuck that I'd just evict them.