Do families in temporary accommodation pay rent?

Likewise, do those who live on benefits, rather than work, pay tax on their income like anyone else?

Yes. For example - a family who are living in temp accommodation (and are therefore under a licence with the council) do still have to pay rent to the council while they are there. In the case I am aware of, they pay just slightly under the LHA rate while they are housed on this basis. I believe the amount of rent can be increased by the council if it sees fit to do so as under a licence agreement there is probably less formality and notice period required.
Be interesting to find out how many councils actually have done this though.

This is not the 'true' cost of temp accommodation though as a whole. You must take into account the actual cost of sourcing this accommodation as its not the councils own. Most if it is comes from renting it from private owners - hotels, B&Bs, flats and houses, and seasonal holiday accommodation (think old coastal towns and chalets etc). Councils pay a lot more out for this so that they can house people on a temp basis.

An good example would be a standard 4 bed house in an average area (not London). Current market rent say £1000pcm. Tenant pays council £825 (under the LHA rate) but the council has to probably pay the Agent/LL/Owner £1300 - 1500pcm to get hold of the property in the first place.

That is why I see the councils going hell for leather on things like Selective Licencing etc. Just more money INTO the coffers...absolutely nothing to do with ensuring decent property standards etc. They want money for doing nothing!

Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 13/12/2023 - 10:24
not sure if the benefit cap is over the level yet where they start to 'officially' pay tax (or should I say fill in a tax return)??

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 13/12/2023 - 11:26
On the basis £12,570 is the point at which you become liable for 20% income tax, anyone who chooses to live on benefits rather than work, must be getting more than that. Also, if working, they are also liable for NI.

The point I'm trying to make is, this government has created a situation where it doesn't pay an increasing number to work, despite the introduction of UC, which was meant to ensure it doesn't pay to stay at home. This means we have jobs which could be filled, but which aren't.

These people put a lot of effort into ensuring they know every wrinkle in the system to enable them to avoid working, and staff at the DWP aren't up to scratch in challenging them.

Whatever happened to '3 strikes...'?

I was told by someone from the council that it costs 3-4 times as much to house someone in emergency accommodation. I enquired because they have cleared 4-5 months rent arrears to keep tenants in place, which they said was significantly cheaper. But then the tenant knows they will do that and behaves according, with most going into arrears again.

I’ve also wondered how council housing compares to the PRS - not just financially, but that would be the key factor. People tend to compare only rents, but that’s the cost to the tenant, not the tax payer. If you add the council support structure and deduct the PRS tax, I’m convinced the PRS does it cheaper and better. I had one ex-tenant tell me “literally the only thing better is the lower rent”. She said the service was terrible. No one owns the council house, so no one cares about it. Apathy is built into the system. Costs are irrelevant because the money comes from the council. Just because it’s done without profit, doesn’t mean it costs less.

Finally, the landlord selling up problem could be eliminated by incentivising landlord to landlord sales. Scrap stamp duty for a start. This would give long-term PRS tenants security.

In answer to the question of whether they pay rent.....

Yes they do - according to paperwork I've found in my properties at different times. But all have been the same.

With the acceptance of emergency accommodation comes a benefit claim which includes a sum for housing. This element of benefit is deducted at source to the provider of the emergency housing.....

The terms of the emergency housing contracts I've seen are such that if the person claiming this need doesn't actually use it (i.e. they don't sleep there at night) from the time it is allocated then the bed space is lost by the next day and their benefit claim is immediately revoked.

The accommodation suppliers are tasked with keeping close tabs on those under their roof with the hours of the clock denoting night from day - along with other rules and regulations of the accommodation fully specified before the occupant moves in (or decides not to, after all).

It seems that not everyone takes up the emergency accommodation offered to them - even though they claim at the time they have nowhere else to go. If they don't approve of it for one reason or another they might bunk up with family or friends after all - or take to the streets.

The bedspace isn't therefore left unoccupied for very long and is soon freed up to be offered to the next person in line for it.

From what I've seen, there is a management system but I'm sure this isn't consistent throughout the UK.

Each local authority (LA) have to provide emergency accommodation to SOME homeless households in accordance with their statutory duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 2006 (as amended), and in accordance with caselaw that has interpreted the legislation and set relevant legal precedents.

The legislation and caselaw also sets out the circumstances when a LA's duty to provide accommodation can be ended, and this may differ depending on the specific legal duty under which the person(s) are accommodated, e.g. if the person is classed as having no priority need (as defined in the legislation) then the LA may have no duty to house them, but may choose to do so in specific circumstances, e.g. if temperature falls below 0 degrees, (this is often known as "SWEP" - Severe Weather Emergency Provision). There are processes in place for the ending of accommodation provision depending on the LA's legal duties, and this may vary from instant eviction through to eviction after reasonable notice, with what is "reasonable" being determined the the facts of each specific case.

Each LA will have their own processes for obtaining emergency/temporary accommodation, and this will vary from one LA to another to take account of what options are available to them. How such accommodation is paid for will also vary, for example, a room at the local Travelodge or B&B is likely to be billed to and paid direct by the LA, whereas a temporary placement into a housing association property may mean that the rent is payable by the resident but they may then be able to claim Housing Benefit to assist with the payment of that rent. In some circumstances HB may also be claimed by residents of other emergency housing such as B&Bs, with the claim being assessed under different legislative provisions due to the fact that it is an emergency homelessness placement (such that the accommodation charges are paid in full by HB, not just up to the LHA level).

So in answer to the question of who is liable to pay the rent in emergency accommodation, the answer is "it depends".

In relation to whether benefit recipients have to pay tax on their benefit income, as asked by NewYorkie, again the answer is "it depends", as some types of welfare benefits are taxable, however most income based welfare benefits are not taxable.

There is bed and breakfast and temporary accommodation.
You may get a room in a shared house or hotel or a room or studio in a hostel or even a self contained flat owned or leased by a supplier or a landlord.
Occupiers can live a self contained property for years but it is still counted as TA.
Some Councils may charge more than they pay to cover their other costs.

Reply to the comment left by Robert M at 14/12/2023 - 11:28
If UC isn't taxed, the gap between an indolent lifestyle, and hard work and paying tax, is even greater. Is it any wonder they won't work!

Reply to the comment left by Chris at 16/12/2023 - 11:24
councils actually house a higher number of people in TA than they would into perm accommodation.

eg. A family of 5 in a two bed is perfectly acceptable if they are housed under the 'temp' banner, yet they would not be able to be offered a 2 bed house on a perm basis if there were not enough sleeping rooms to accommodate them.

I have a good contact in a council who informs me that they currently have a number of families of 6 in both 2 bed or three bed flats, despite being technically overcrowded. Why? Because overcrowded is not a term that applies in TA it seems....and yes they have also admitted there is a major issue with damp and mould in this properties simply because of too many bodies in limited space...and these are modern flats!

My contact advises that there is absolutely no perm accommodation of suitable size on the horizon for these families so yes they could be here for years....