Landlords refusing to take benefits recipients as tenants

[sarahquilt]

It's in the Guardian about major landlords refusing to take on people on benefits due to increasing levels of arrears - pretty controversial!

I have two tenants on long term benefits, I have had them for years and years and have had no problems with either of them. They both pay below the market value though. This is only because they are such good tenants I want to keep the rent low so that they don't move. The only thing though is that they both smoke like chimneys, I will have to do a complete refurb when they do move out.

I think in many countries it's illegal to discriminate against the poor in this way, or to refuse to rent to people with children.

I'm in the East of England.

I'm waiting to hear about a flat i looked at last week. The agent has known all along i will be claiming HB but is waiting for confirmation from the LL who has been away this week.

ultimately, the flat is empty and the LL is paying out service charges for a property he's not getting an income from. i have one month's rent and deposit ready to go (thank goodness for an amicable split!) and i have run the council's HB calculator and my DLA means the rent is fully covered.

i really need this to work out! the agent has run all the background and credit checks (they also know i have an IVA in place but my STBXH is extremely creditworthy) so am on tenterhooks at the moment.

aargh!

"As for super hardnosed businessman's tenants;- in reality, he would have no idea which of his tenants are in receipt of HB- because they don't have to tell him. Ie:- if you're working as a cleaner and you're income's being topped up by HB, you just tell the LL you're working as a cleaner- and provide work references. If that invalidates the terms of his mortgage- hey, that's business, you've got to take the rough with the smooth"

Usually tenants have to produce proof of income before a property is let to them. It is not that easy to evict a tenant who pays on time and doesn't trouble the neighbours. It is really expensive to take a tenant to court and have ballifs forcibly remove them. Also the judge has to agree.

If it is not enough for that, or if landlords will not rent to them, then what are they supposed to do?

I guess exwife's post a couple below yours illustrates what they're supposed to do. Be anxious, "on tenterhooks". Become increasingly insecure about the possibility of getting a roof over their heads. Even when they clearly have enough money to cover the rent, and have a guarantor.

I just wonder when they're going to declare being poor a criminal offence, and have done with it.

Before local housing allowance was introduced in 2008, Housing benefit was paid (generally) direct to LLs. Once lha came in housing benefit had to be paid to the tenant.

At our local authority, we knew then that many private landlords would stop accepting benefit claimants simply because of the risk of not being paid their rent.

This is so unfair as many many tenants on benefit pay their rent on time. There are working tenants who don't, but landlords seem to only want 'professionals'

As for landlords finding out their tenants are on benefits, it's not through our LA. Although we do ask as pRt of the benefits application if we can discuss their claim- but only if the LL contacts us.

What's the controversy?

The fact that a landlord has decided not to let to those on benefits because in his experience they default more than other sectors of the population?

Or the fact that people on benefits are increasingly defaulting because of govt cuts.

The simple fact is that landlords are running a business. Most landlords are not like the one in the article who have many many properties. Most landlords have one or maybe a couple of properties they rent out to try & save for retirement.

They have a mortgage that needs to be paid, insurance that needs to be paid and various other safety/tax/admin things that need to be all paid for.

It's a big problem if your tenant defaults because whilst you have no money, you still have to shell out to the bank etc.

Some social tenants are reliable and pay reguarly. Those are worth their weight in gold and landlords will bend over backwards to keep them. But many are not.

I've just had a guy on housing benefit skip on my mum's property after 2 months of a year's tenancy leaving a trail of mess costing about £500 to fix.

The question no-one has commented on is why is the landlord in the article finding Eastern European immigrants who have less invested in the local community far more reliable than locals?

Those bloody Eastern Europeans! Fancy coming to our country, working hard and paying their bills on time eh? It's making landlords kick out all the natives who are defaulting on their rents!

Plenty of landlords don't accept people on housing benefit. However there is a difference between refusing to accept someone who is ALREADY on housing benefit and evicting an otherwise excellent tenant who has fallen on hard times, but is paying rent on time.

Our worse tenants were supposely professionals in well paid jobs. The risk of bad tenants comes with the territory of being a landlord. I believe you get good and bad tenants of all nationalities.

"
The question no-one has commented on is why is the landlord in the article finding Eastern European immigrants who have less invested in the local community far more reliable than locals?"

More intelligent and better educated people have fewer financial problems.

Most middle/high income British people buy their own property, often with parents helping with the desposit. Many highly educated Poles do not have wealthy parents who can help them get on the housing ladder. Also a lot of Poles only want to be in England for the short/ medium term. Many immigrants with good jobs cannot get a mortgage as they do not have infinite leave to stay.

The Wilsons are notorious for being nasty pieces of work.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209013/Property-tycoons-worth-70m-demand-3-000-bathroom-suite-tenants---replace-200-broken-toilet-lid.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1250821/The-buy-let-gurus-empire-crumbles.html

He previously said:

www.thisiskent.co.uk/Landlord-cool-Londoners/story-19067485-detail/story.html

'A LANDLORD who owns properties across east Kent is fed up of Kent being used as a "dumping ground" for people on benefits from London boroughs.
Fergus Wilson, who owns almost 1,000 houses, said that last week his estate agents were asked if they could house a large family from London.
Mr Wilson said he does not have a property suitable for the family in question but that even if he did, he would put Kent people first.'

'The question no-one has commented on is why is the landlord in the article finding Eastern European immigrants who have less invested in the local community far more reliable than locals?'

It's a bloody stupid question.

He says that the tiny subset of Eastern Europeans who have the get-up-and-go to trek across a continent and start life in a foreign country, are more reliable than the subset of British people who are still in Britain but reliant on state support for whatever reason.

It's not exactly a revelation is it?

'Those bloody Eastern Europeans! Fancy coming to our country, working hard and paying their bills on time eh? It's making landlords kick out all the natives who are defaulting on their rents!'

Well indeed.

The natives still need housing, and foreigners driving up rents + house prices isn't going to do them any good.

We weren't consulted on Eastern European migration, and personally I would have preferred not to accept a million+ new people into the country when I can't afford a home of my own for my family.

My brother rented out his (non mortgaged so was able to) house to a woman on benefits while he was abroad. The money was paid directly. He even let it cheaper than the going rate so he would get a long term tenant. She was found guilty of benefit fraud and HE had to pay the money back, and was expected to try to get it back by civil means. So even paying directly to the landlord isn't always foolproof.

Sorry, for those who are saying the tenants simply don't have to tell the landlord that they are receiving benefits - that's nonsense. As a potential tenant, you need to demonstrate that you can financially afford to pay the rent. That is what the credit checks (and 3 month's of bank statements) is for. If you don't earn enough to pay the rent, you will be asked how you are planning to do so.

Wallison - you can only evict someone with 2 months notice if they are at the end if their tenancy agreement. If they have not broken any terms if the agreement then you can't just evict them.

I have had a tenant on HB in my house for 6 years and I could not find a better tenant. I will probably sell when she leaves as I don't believe we will get that lucky with a tenant again, we live in Scotland house is in London so nightmare to manage if the tenant is bad.

"Wallison - you can only evict someone with 2 months notice if they are at the end if their tenancy agreement. If they have not broken any terms if the agreement then you can't just evict them."

Well no and yes. You can't evict anyone without a court order.

What you can do is service notice any time after the initial tenancy is up, which could be as soon as six months after moving in. It is quite possible that most of the tenants are on rolling contracts after an initial six month tenancy.

The problem for the Wilsons is the people they want to evict would be ill-advised in most cases to leave without a court order, since if they leave voluntarily, they might not get housed by the council.

As they likely have little to lose in terms of credit record, and may not be in a position to move out, it's not perhaps the best plan to evict 200 people all at once.

Who knows, maybe it is just bullshit for the press and they haven't done this at all. If they have, it's rather foolish.

I have a tenant on HB who decided over the summer to use the HB money to send her child on a school trip and I had to understand that his uniform costs a bit as he goes to a naice school, not like the ones in our town...

... that would be the school my own DD goes to that you are dismissive of. And she only did this once she realised that Dh and I were younger and have children - so I'm going want to be her friend.

This is one of the problems when the HB isn't paid directly to the LL. And now I'm the bad guy making her pay me back (in installments over months).

I'd like to be sympathetic to people on benefits, I really would. But this is my first tenant on HB and it is not going well. I need to pay the mortgage and heaven help me if I want to make a hint of profit on the capital I invested should have bunged it into bonds

Yes, it must be very hard if you can't find someone else to pay your mortgage/investment vehicle for you.

How many tenants do you have, and how many tears should we shed for you?

T'was always thus.

We got

... into terrible trouble when dp was unemployed. There was a mixup with a job interview that they said he failed to attend. They stopped benefit immediately without consultation. I can imagine this kind of thing happens a lot these days, especially now that disabled people are expected to find suitable work. The benefit officers are really ruthless these days. I suspect this is why the Wilsons are doing what they are, and now that payday loans have been restricted there is no longer a bottomless pit available for tenants to scrape on behalf of their landlords.

I suspect the Wilsons hold a lot of power and are using this as a way to hold the LAs to ransom. They know that many LAs are bailing out tenants who can't afford their rents following the introduction of local housing allowance caps. It is possible that East Kent isn't one of those areas.

Wallison - I got my money from working as a nurse in the NHS, not earning a fortune but with careful spending I was able to buy a house, then I met DH and moved into his house, keeping mine.

I got that house from standing on my feet, for 12 hours a day doing my best by people. So perhaps you could shed a tear for my slipped disc, or dislocated shoulder, several black eyes, a broken nose and the nice set of teeth marks in my arm.

Or perhaps not. Now I'm going before I make a personal attack as it's late and I'm tired. for the record it would be to tell you fuck off were I to continue

Effy you got your house through hard work. You got to let your house out by living in someone else's.

"Sorry, for those who are saying the tenants simply don't have to tell the landlord that they are receiving benefits - that's nonsense. As a potential tenant, you need to demonstrate that you can financially afford to pay the rent. That is what the credit checks (and 3 month's of bank statements) is for. If you don't earn enough to pay the rent, you will be asked how you are planning to do so."

^^ that's if a letting agent/ landlord asks for those specific things. I have rented many times and been a landlord myself with numerous estate agencies and have never been asked for or received 3 months banks statements (and would refuse to give them)- they're worthless anyway. A credit check on shows up your attitude to credit, nothing about your income or it's source. Everyone has different criteria.

You could ask for an employers ref and just not rent to anyone who can't get one, but that's not always realistic- people who don't need to work, the self employed, those who do jobs like labouring where contracts are short term. That would discriminate against practically anyone not working for a large company, and of course they're easy to forge anyway. Those much loved Eastern European tenants are frequently self employed tradespeople/cleaners etc. In many parts of the country this is the reality of the local workforce. The landlord can hold out for someone who works for, say, BT but they could be out of business waiting.

Even if a tenant had no choice but to provide bank statements it would just say the councils name next to a credit on their statement- couldn't you just say you work for the council?