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.

'Sancti: who would pay the extra insurance? the tenant? out of their own money I would hope? Would this be your plan. A security deposit scheme would also help.
'

Yes the tenant

It's nopt true HB tenats aren't like other tenants: any tenant can become a HB tenant if they are unlucky: they won't necessarily incur a charge thange of eprsonality though, and will already have paid a security deposit. I guess to a large extent these are the ones I am especially interested in; pretty much without exception genuine unfortunate tyoes ( redundant, sick, etc) who need to maintain a roof at a time that will almost inevitable be difficult anyway.

It seems ridiculous that someone who has been an excellent tenat for 5,10 yeqrs and then gets sick would lose their hoime just becuase a mortgage co says so!

Also, on a similar thread last year someone costed out the difference between HB and no HB insurance and it was certainly under £250- a great many people could afford that out of redundancy or whatever to keep a secure home.

My guess given the landlords who do evict on receipt of HB part way through a tenancy and the current dearth of housing is that the law was changed to minimise the numbers of homeless people turning up looking for a house becuase they ahve been laid off for 3 months and the LL said no to HB. Yes it's probably unfair on the LL (and I will repeat that we have been LL's, although the buggers who removed our kitchen were not on HB) I suppose it's hard igf you are weighing up fairness to LL with making your kids homeless. It's not a no consequences choice is it? In my alst job I had several famillies of 4 in one room hostels spaces, one woman even gave birth there for exactly the reason that the Dh lost his job and LL evicted them, and that has to be a horrid predicament. yes a lot of the people there were in arrears and being amde to clear them before being rehoused, fair enough, but most certainly not all and I almost wept when said family faced their foirst Chriostmas with 5 year old and newborn stuck there- and cried again when they were given a house straight after and the DH found work.

They are not like other tenants in that there is no security deposit generally.

Not in a personal way. But a security deposit is important.

But if someone becomes a claimant part way through a tenancy they will ahve paid their deposit, no?

Also- my friemd on part HB just lost a house becuase she couldn't get the deposit together in time so some must be paying a deposit? House rent of £600, £1200 security deposit. Pretty much what we paid here. Actually I think council are finding the gap but she's a rare case- nasty H in prison so classed as at risk as he currenlty knows where she and kids are IYSWIM. A special case.

I think becoming claimant part way is different. I certainly would not evict anyone just for that reason. Also the landlord might not even know provided that you can pay your rent while waiting for HB.

That's what I think is wrong mingg, when that happens.

Of course a LL shoudl get a say on who lives in their house; not all LL are buy to lets after all, the house we live ijn is the one where our LL was raised, left in a will. It means a lot to her, far more than monetary value. If I was still renting out I wouldn't rent to anyone I knew was a member of the BNP, or simialr, I just couldn't. My home, my rules.

I do have major issues though with the way mortgaee and insurance rules penalise people who have paid their own deposit, rent, cared for the house for years and then lucked out a bit. Surely they are better off with a proven tenant on HB than some unknown quantity paying their own way?

No LL in their right mind would chuck out a good tenant who had to go on hb due to changed circs. It's whether to take them on in the first place. Or have we wandered far off topic..?

"And for the record I have always paid my rent on time, left the property in a good state and received my full deposit back, leaving on good terms with the landlord."

Jendaisy, whilst that great lying to a landlord about getting HB could be putting their asset at risk. If there was a fire and it gutted the place, it wouldnt matter if you paid your rent on time etc but it would matter that if the insurance refused to pay you would have left somebody with no asset and possibly still a mortgage. Whilst some landlords can accept HB tennants, many cant and lying is very wrong.

I'm a landlord and i'd never house people on housing benefits. I'm not rich enough to take the risk.

HappyMummy yes its wrong

But the system surelyn pushes people into it?

If someone tells their LL many councils would argue that the tenant beocmes intentionally homeless and cannot be rehoused

Can you not understand why someone might weigh up the risk of fire etc against the risk of homeless ness and act like that? may not be right of course, but I think understandable.

The issue is that there needs to be more social housing.

Private rentals are exactly that - people's private homes. No one should be forced to hand over control over who rents their house. If there were a greater stock of social housing (and indeed, if people were moved into smaller social housing as their needs changed) then this would be less of a problem. There is a big enough pool of working people who aren't on benefits who want or need rented accommodation anyway.

'The issue is that there needs to be more social housing.'

That is not going to happen. No council will build it because it is too expensive to run and they are all facing cuts and having economic problems. No one wants it near them.

So there must be reform of tenancy laws.

'
Private rentals are exactly that - people's private homes. No one should be forced to hand over control over who rents their house

but neither should they be prewvented from doing so becuase they ahve a mortgage company that says no, and they should be made aware and that HB insurance is available and that they can pass additonal cost to tenant.

There's a huge jump between forcing someoone to hand over their home to anyone, and removing barriers from those who would choose to.

The impression that a landlord is doing a tenant a favour by the latter paying the former for the let of space in which to inhabit is part of what has gotten us into this mess!

If a lanlord is still seeing the property he lets out as his home he really has no business in the business.

It is a commodity that a person pays money for to use as a home.

If the landlord still sees it as home then he needs to go back and live in it or sell it on.

I tell you what I would do though wrrt to allowing people to rent to whom they want

I would allow it

Simple as

But if they were willing to accept HB and hellp out the country that way, i'd gve them a % of a rise in CGT after a qualifying period of 2 years

Stick and carrot

And what would happen when a HB tenant wrecks the property?

Landlord's bad luck?

Nope

A HB tenant shoud be made to pay a deposit as any other, or / and to cover teh extra £200 or so to enable the landlord to obtain insurance cover that allows HB.

With proper cover in palce, a landlord is not more at risk: the people who ripped out our entire kitchen on the assumption that they could just buy the house from us or something (DH drove past and found kitchen burned in back garden) were both employed: with insurance and a decent solicitor it was all OK. With insurance and a good solicitor hb wuld have been noworse.

Remember hb does not equate to penniless: you can have a few k in the bank and still claim HB, eg follwoing redundancy.

Anyway, if there is still a risk you don't want after insurancer etc covered, that's your option. Butas with nmot being paid forr a job you don't do / given rewards for toehrr things, you can't claim the CGT benfit. LL's choice.

I think that having HB paid direct to the landlord by default, and enabling the landlord to take a realistic deposit would go a long way to encouraging landlords to let to HB tenants.
I did not evict my tenants when one of them became unemployed, but my honest admission is that I wish I had. (My mortgage has the no HB tenants clause). Their thanks to me was to pocket 12 weeks HB, then when I got it stopped, I got exactly £90 HB paid direct before they became employed again... and still didn't pay their rent. I'm evicting them and guess what? Suddenly neither of them is employed, so I can wave my lost rent goodbye.
I'd happily rent to HB tenants if the benefit was paid to me, they (or the council) would pay for the extra insurance and if I could take the usual deposit, to help cover possible damage. Honestly, that would give me the peace of mind to do it again.

I dont think the benefiit should have to be apid direct- they won't do that, they;d get too amny homeless tenants on their doorstep evicted but na tenant should be required to present evidence weekly or monthly that they have paid the rent, as simple as a bank statement showing direct debit / rent book.

If they fail to do so, LL would then be contacted and offered rent directly, but claimants right to HB direct would cease.

Not apying HB is theft; so I woudl also advocate prosecution of those who steal. Why on earth not?

bolleaux

my house was my home and will be again

i'll rent to who I can, who I want and leave it empty if I need to

Is that to OP?

I am not aware otehrwise that I said anything else

But likewise I think the country should be rearding those who do choose to muck in with the housing crisis.

'If a lanlord is still seeing the property he lets out as his home he really has no business in the business.'

So who does it belong to then?!

This is an absurd argument! When you pay rent for something, you pay for the use of it. Not to own it. In fact, very often people hire or rent commodities because they either can't, or don't want to, commit to making a purchase at that particular time. And renting something certainly doesn't give you the right to not pay up, or to damage the goods. As a landlord, I would retain the right to rent my property to someone to use if I chose to. To go back to the OP, it is utterly ridiculous to suggest making it illegal to hand over this right.

I think what Expat is trying to say that when you rent a property you should not view the property as your home but as a business. Your house your property yes but not your home.

Sancti - I think your idea is good in principal. I once rented to a HB tenant through the Council. The council paid (held) a deposit on behalf of the tenant. She kept all the HB, "redecorated" the house and left without paying a penny. Once I notified the Council rep of this she stopped taking my calls, did not return my calls or answer my emails. Eventually I made a complaint and even after my claim was accepted it still took 5 weeks to get the deposit which btw did not cover the rent I lost nor fixing the damage the tenant left behind. On top of that I was told that because of my behaviour I would be removed from the Council's list of private HB landlords... I know this could have happened with a private tenant too but so far all my HB tenant have been more trouble than they have been worth.

Oh and about suing the tenants - yes I could do that and actually really want to but it is only going to cost me more, take time and I'll never get any of it back so what is the point?