to think that it should be illegal to refuse potential tenants because they claim housing benefit???!!

[StuckInTheMiddleWithYou]

I mean, what happens if a person loses their job, does the landlord then have the righ to evict them???

Grrrrr.

YEs if they don't pay the rent!

Anyway it is not normally the landlords choice it is a condition of most mortgages

Difficult. Some mortgage companies and insurance companies etc won't allow landlords to rent to those on housing benefits because of the propensity towards problems paying etc. I know of other landlords who have had major issues and lost thousands because of poor payers. Obviously this tars a lot of perfectly good tenants with the same brush which isn't nice.

As a landlady (amateur, I rent out my single lady flat) I would think twice before taking HB tenants. Purely because I would need to check my standing with mortgage company first. Then I would want blumming good references etc, want a credit check, but provided both of these checked out I would happily accept suitable HB tenants. (Obviously the latter criteria, references, credit checks and suitability apply to all not just HB!)

What I mean to say is sometimes it isn't people being discriminatory for the sake of it.

Meant to add that I'm not just being mean, I physically (and fiscally!) can't afford to be messed around.

If someone were to lose their job and then apply there is very often a time lag between applications being approved and sorted etc, if the tenants can't afford to pay in that time am I supposed to subsidise?

What MrsC2010 says. If it incurs greater expense for the landlord, through higher premiums etc then that's a perfectly legitimate reason for a landlord refusing.

I think it should be up to the person who owns the property who they rent it to.

WOuld be a stupid thing to start legislating on and landlords would find a way to get round it and there would be even less on the market for people on housing benefit.

illegal? you mean, an actual crime?

like what would the crime be?

and how would you prove it? i mean, supposing a landlord just happens not to take tenants on HB...

No the secondcoming, many buy to let mortgages specifically forbid you from having tenenats who are paying using HB, not from tenants per se.

My parents rented my grandmother's house out to a couple on benefits. They wrecked the house and Dad had to get solicitors involved to get them out. Now I am in no way saying that all people on benefits treat rented accomodation like this but I can totally see why my Dad said "never again".

YABU

Up to the owner who they rent to.

There are mortgage and insurance issues.

not a crime but as you say not really a risk you want to take especially at the moment with so many lenders looking to recall their money at any opportunity. I think the poor administration of HB doesn't help either. If there was a well organised system where HB was always paid on time direct to landlords and had been for the last 10 years or so then probably landlords/motgage companies would be falling over themselves to take HB tenants!

I cannot understand why HB is not paid directly to the landlord. Landlords and mortgage companys would surely be more willing to let then?

I have been very lucky to get a house with my HB.

It would be so easy not to pay the rent and be a nightmare.

Most landlords are interested in renting to tenants who

a) pay up
b) look after the place

As Londonone rightly says, if there was a watertight system for HB then landlords would probably welcome it, as it would mean more security for them. As there isn't, you can't blame them for wanting to rely on tenants who work and pay their own rent. There are also many layers to this sort of issue. If you are a professional person renting a property, then you are less likely to risk buggering about with late or non payments, risking eviction and a crap reference for your next house. If you aren't working, you perhaps feel you have less to lose.

I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, just pointing out that its not as straightforward as landlords just wanting to discriminate.

Landlords usually have a mortgage to pay, as well as insurances, and all the maintenance costs - why should they risk their financial well being?

YANBU

Hi Stuck

Yanbu - does this scenario apply to you? Some councils have deposit guarantee schemes and lists of accredited landlords.
I would expect that someone in receipt of full Hb or local housing allowance is a pretty safe bet especially if they agree to direct payments.
As far as eviction the rent arrears goes yes it is the l/l right if this is persitent but if a tenant has applied for benefit and meets the criteria it would be pretty unfair.

i rent out my flat and have moved in with my fiance, i will sell my flat once hte mortgage tie-in period is over.

i am not allowed to take tenants with HB due to my mortgage provider. it was a condition when i told them i wanted to rent it out. they also charge me a 1% fee even though they only own less than 70% of the value of the flat.

sorry to any HB claimants but it's not the landlord's call if there's a mortgage involved.

My mum rented to HB tenants and after the rent stopped being paid she wrote to them. After no reply she went round there and they had done a runner leaving the flat in a total mess. All the furniture was trashed, debt collector letters on the table and lots of designer goods still with the tags on in there too.

It cost her over a lot of money in cleaning and redecorating to get the place back to it's usual standard. Out of 6 previous tenants, this was the only time it happened and all the other tenants were private paying.

Read into that what you will. I do agree that not everybody behaves in the same way so it makes life more difficult for good tenants that need financial support but what is a landlord supposed to do?

At the end of the day it is their property and they can rent to anyone they want to within certain criteria if a mortgage is involved.

Imagine if a Landlord put up an ad saying "no coloureds" in a 1950's style?

Not allowed for very good reasons.

Of course a Landlord should be allowed to evict if a tenant does not pay the rent - that was not what I was getting at.

If it was made "unlawful" (as opposed to illegal which I admit would be harsh) wouldn't that be fair?

So it's the mortage companies who are discriminating against the poor? Hmmm.

I would never damage the property. Quite the opposite, I have a batch of antique heavy silk (inherited) to make up into curtains and upholstery stored away, which should give you an idea of how I'd treat the place.

Yet I am branded the same as the Vicky Pollards of this world...

Grrrr. General rantyness.

I think it should be illegal (which would eman enforcing rules on lmortgage providers etc) to evict a tenat who becomes in need of HB yet manages not to default on teh rent- eg used savings / redundancy whilst processing claim.

If someone has been an excellent tenat for eyars they won't change becuase their employer said bye.

But intial aceptance has to be on basis of owners choice. Mortgage providers shouldn't be rpeventing people from renting to Hb though- it should be down to credit checks, references etc.

I eman God forbid if Dh died, i'd have to claim HB (carer)then what- be immediately evicted? hardly helpful- on prioviso I repeat that rent is still paid on time.

I think it should be illegal (which would eman enforcing rules on lmortgage providers etc) to evict a tenat who becomes in need of HB yet manages not to default on teh rent- eg used savings / redundancy whilst processing claim.

If someone has been an excellent tenat for eyars they won't change becuase their employer said bye.

But intial aceptance has to be on basis of owners choice. Mortgage providers shouldn't be rpeventing people from renting to Hb though- it should be down to credit checks, references etc.

I eman God forbid if Dh died, i'd have to claim HB (carer)then what- be immediately evicted? hardly helpful- on prioviso I repeat that rent is still paid on time.

(sorry, small boy under keyboard LOL)

At the end of the day its the landlords asset and usually an expensive one so they should be able to have some restrictions on who they let it to.

Mortgage companies restrict against HB as history shows tennants have a history of non payment and also its harder to evict a person on benefits as the council/shelter will tell them to remain and sit out until eviction.

Insurance companies restrict it due to the past claims history, no different to rating any other type of insurance.

They only pay HB direct to landlords now afer x weeks of arrears and only then for a set period. They stopped paying it direct as too many landlords have "claw backs" from where tennants claimed incorrectly and so the money was due back to the state.

Yes, there will be good tennants on HB but the majority are not hence all the restrictions companies now have in place to protect them.

So it's the mortage companies who are discriminating against the poor? Hmmm

there are some very poor divisions of society not eligile for HB, for varying reasons - some landlords prefer HB tenants for this reason - they are better than poor-but-not-HB tenants.