My bank asked me to evict my housing benefit tenant

[HelenaMcAleer]

Hi all

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this message. It's a long story but recently NatWest asked me to evict my tenant simply because she was on housing benefit. I've Refused!

I'm not changing banks, and questioning the ethics and legality of them and many other banks doing the same thing. I have also started a petition to get the government to prevent banks from discriminating in this way.

You can read my full story and sign the petition here, please do as making a difference in society would be massive.

www.facebook.com/Happyhelz/posts/10156021438028111

The Guardian reported on this at the weekend and many companies have pledged their support but it's real people and real signatures that i need. If you've any questions, please just ask. x

Could they not reclaim your house if you do not abide their T&Cs.

@HelenaMcAleer thank you for caring about your tenant. I hope that mortgage lenders are made to remove such appalling restrictions on the tenants a landlord can have. As for the comments about focusing on social housing - where would many tenants stay until this (pie in the sky) social housing is built - they don't care.

Insurance companies and mortgage providers exclude housing benefits tenants because an actuary would have done lots of calculations and the calculations would have found that they are significantly more likely to default and cause damage.

They're not doing it because they don't "like" housing benefits recipients.

So - if housing benefits renters are not excluded then costs would need to be increased across the board.

Which may well be the answer. But I think it is only one option. And there are a number of other options which may be more effective and fairer and where the cost is managed through government.

So - I don't think its the clear cut issue this suggests it is.

I have a Housing Benefits tenant that was in situ when I bought a flat. She's vulnerable. And a nightmare tenant. The solution for her is not a private rental - I can't provide the practical support she needs to maintain her home and I am getting paid a market rate for a private rental from the state.

So whilst well intentioned I don't think this is the solution.

Is the Rent a Room scheme exempt from the conditions for a mortgage? Also don’t benefits now get paid to the recipient which means some landlords never see the rent? If the rent is needed to service the mortgage, there is a problem with this if the LL cannot be certain of getting the money each month. It’s a risk that they don’t like.

Housing Associations cannot build enough homes. There is such a problem regarding getting planning permission, there is no hope of anyone building enough homes. It can take years to identify land and build homes.

They didn't tell you to evict her at all. They told you they wouldn't extend your mortgage (with the tenant in situ)

This ^^

I'm also intrigued by the bank supposedly not knowing because of a "paperwork mix up by the mortgage broker". I'm wondering if somebody simply decided not to tell them, but since the article also says the property's now been remortgaged elsewhere, it seems it's been resolved

I signed your petition through a link in the Guardian article. It's ridiculous that banks should be allowed to discriminate like this. If the rent is being paid on time and the mortgage payments are being met on time, it's none of the bank's business where that money comes from.

Can't believe the people on here who are trotting out the 'taxpayer' argument - people on HB pay taxes too and many are in work!

I’m starting to come to the conclusion that second home owning should be disallowed (illegal seems too strong a term to use here).

Housing Associations dont HAVE to sell homes off as holiday homes either................ but they do!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/telly_addicts/3304710-Dispatches-Getting-Rich-from-the-Housing-Crisis

twitter.com/tenantsunionuk/status/1052475358556147712

Tenants Union UK
‏ @tenantsunionuk
Oct 17

Tenants Union UK Retweeted Tenants Union UK

Still waiting to hear why @AdactusHA and @JigsawHG are selling social housing, not to families but to PRS landlords targeting students and short term lets like Airbnb to increase the transience of the area. Why? You say this is in agreement with @ManCityCouncil ?

Interestingly I don’t think these ts&cs can work with UC because the landlord won’t know they’re being paid by HB, so not sure how lenders will react to that

You need to wake up folks. Housing benefit isn't there to pay the mortgage or the income of someone. It’s there to help somebody having a food over their heads. And as the rental market is mostly private, it will help private owners/landlords

Barely any social housing/landlords tho. Your solution to this is...?

My insurers won’t allow me to rent to those on housing benefit either so you can’t just target the banks.

What would be good to know is whether this is a fairly recent thing or as a result of changes to the benefit system whereby previously the benefit went straight to the landlord.

This change was prior to me becoming a landlord but I have heard that it’s made some more reluctant to rent to this sector as the income was no longer guaranteed and therefore became a greater risk.

Anecdotally I’ve heard that the change impacted the most vulnerable who were not used to paying rent and struggled to do so resulting in evictions.

Let's hope they don't make second home ownership illegal. I would be on the street

The problem is that BTL landlords always want to have the cake and eat it. They want to do it business like when it suits them; and then they want to be treated leniently, as if they are charities when it's the other way around.

If it is a business, then any loss/damage due to a commercial mistake has to be bore by the business, not the customer (in this case the tenant). The fact that the business (landlord) didn't have the due diligence to read and understand the small prints is irrelevant to the bank and the customer. The business has to pay the cost difference.

If a business wants to play the "charity" card, then it needs to stop making any money from the tenant.

I’ve heard that the (HB) change impacted the most vulnerable who were not used to paying rent and struggled to do so resulting in evictions

I don't know if this applies in all areas - Helena can probably advise here - but in mine, those deemed unable to manage their own finances can still opt for HB to pay landlords directly

The banks are doing a risk assessment on the likihood of a default.
The role out of universal credit is leading to huge numbers of claimants getting into financial trouble which is affecting landlords.

I don't think that the OP wants the taxpayer to pay her mortgage. At the end of the day there isn't enough social housing. If the tenant is evicted they become homeless. It is ending up costing the taxpayer MORE to then deal with that and find emergency accomodation as there simply isn't the number of homes needed without private landlords.

Whilst I don't like buy to let and wish there were greater restrictions over it, you'd only end up with other problems as there isn't enough social housing.

The banks HAVE to by law manage the risk they are exposed to. If they assess mortgaging to people with HB tenants as high risk they have to put more to one side in reserves to protect themselves. If they didn't do it this way, they have to find the money from elsewhere.

Ultimately the policy comes directly from the car crash that is UC. And to my mind thats where protest should be directed. Its causing destitution and homelessness in multiple ways.

Those private landlords that are trying to do the right thing by not discriminating between HB tenants and other tenants aren't the ones that we should be attacking primarily. There are plenty of other landlords who are acting in a much more questionable fashion. I'd rather landlords like the OP, than slum landlords who are capitalising in other ways because of this policy and increasing deparation from HB claimants to get anywhere at all to live.

Some of the posts on this thread are shameful and completely miss the point and the nature of the problem.

OP, I don't think your petition is the right way to go for this reason though I salute you for being willing to take HB tenants and sticking up for them. The problem is simply UC.

However, mortgage companies had such clauses well before UC, when HB was paid directly to the landlord and arrears were by far the lowest in that sector than any other.

They did.

But there were alternatives available.

But the risk increasing because of UC just makes it more likely banks will restrict the availability of credit in these circumstances.

I can’t remember the reason why it changed in the first place but would the solution be to revert back to the hb element being paid directly to landlords?