To think this estate agent is a smug cock

[sevenkeystomysoul]

and to want his company to go under. Have just been informed by an up-himself agent that his company has an 'across the board' policy of no HB, even though I am working and have a guarantor (surely more security to a landlord than a salary that could disappear tomorrow in today's climate?). Gah, I f*cking HATE agents and landlords, and wouldn't even be moving again if my current landlord wasn't refusing to replace a boiler that is so ancient its parts are now obsolete and rewire the place (after being told by British Gas that it isn't earthed properly).

They ask for the amount you get paid domesticdiva. (I used to do the references for one of my jobs)

I stand corrected then! However can assure you LA's are trying to combat this sort of discrimination by paying directly etc. You will probably find that those LL who refuse HB have not been found to be 'fit and proper' landlords under HB regulations, hence LA's can refuse to pay them directly. (Can't believe I'm sticking up for my old job, )

TBF to letting agents, one did explain that they would have required a guarantor from anyone on my wage, whether receiving HB or not.

I never fully understood the reason why mortgage companies refused HB tenants before so thank you BBM for explaining that!

If I've understood it right, mortgage companies don't like HB tenants because they have more rights against eviction than normal tenants? Does that apply even if the amount of HB claimed is very small?

yes i meant 30 times the rent in a year - i would never move if it had to be 30 times rent per month in fact i feel faint thinking about it

domesticdiva - I had one landlord who was very against DSS tenants and absolutely no HB tenants - it turned out that the reason was that the moneygrabbing cunt was subletting his Housing Association flat, whilst claiming HB on his own account for the same property whilst living in a different local authority and for all I know claiming HB there as well! Which was why he didn't want to risk someone else claiming HB from the same address as him...

So now if a landlord refuses HB I do tend to assume it is because they are dodgy in some way, and to steer well clear!

DSS = Dept of Social Services = being on benefits and possibly not working.
If your income won't be enough for them to accept you anyway, you do have to mention the HB of course.

Not sure about the whole HB thing, but I was under the impression that HB is now handed over to individuals and not landlords. Therefore, it's up to the individual to pay it as they choose and the landlord has no automatic rights to it.
As a landlord, this would make me a bit jumpy. If I have mortgage payments to meet, I need to know my tenants will pay the rent for sure.

Henny The problem with that logic is that non HB renters could do exactly the same. There is no guarantee either way.

Also, that is why you use a guarantor.

True Kaloki - but that is why the money started being paid to LLs directly, because a proportion of HB receivers were not using the money to pay their rent. I didn't know it had gone back to being paid to the tenants rather than the LL direct, I have to admit. But I do think this business of the LL having to pay it back if the tenant is found to be claiming fraudulently is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS! Does that mean they go after the shops that fraudulent claimers spend their other benefits in? No, of course not - it's just penalising an easy target because they can't get their money back from the true guilty party. NO reason why the LL should lose out, just because they are the property owner. but glad I found out about this - so thank you for starting the thread, seven.

I wish it was still paid direct to the landlord, in theory that would make finding a place easier for benefit claimants.

And charging the LL for over payments is stupid.

I wish the people organising these things would try thinking things through for a change.

But Henny, employers hand money to your tenants, and its up to your tenants to hand it over to you, according to the terms of the tenancy agreement.

Do you think you should have an arrangement with your tenants employers, that they hand the rent money direct to you just in case the tenant is too feckless to do so?

Either someone is trustworthy enough to keep to the terms of their agreement or they aren't - I've never understood why HB was allowed to go direct to landlords in the first place. Some landlords used to lie about having received the HB, or carried on receiving it after the tenant had moved on - even if the landlord wasn't dodgy, it meant extra work for them to be involved in the paperwork & more room for confusion.

I refuse HB tenants, and am far from dodgy. I cannot accept HB tenants under the terms of my insurance and mortgage. That is before we move on to the risks of dealing with the authorities.

Actually, after reading miso's post it reminded me of a situation I've been in which would have been worsened by paying directly to the landlord.

We moved into a property which was advertised as heated by underfloor heating but then had none, the only heating was a gas fire - which was faulty and emitting carbon monoxide. THere was a chance we'd have to withhold rent till either things were fixed or we were allowed out of the contract. Paying direct to the landlord would have made it so difficult for us to get anything fixed.

MrsC2010 - I do realise that there are non-dodgy landlords who refuse HB tenants, and I understand the insurance thing isn't down to the landlords.

I also understand more than you could imagine why no sane person would want to deal with the authorities who issue Housing Benefit! That's why I don't understand why there are landlords that complain they can no longer receive HB direct from the benefits agency... why on earth would they want to get involved with all that insane bureacracy and delay when they could simply have (or choose not to if they didn't trust the individual) a legally enforceable tenancy agreement with the tenant.