My landlord has just increased my rent by £700 per month

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 20/08/2024 - 21:18
I agree money manager - the welfare state has gone too far creating a nation of takers, 'my rights' and expectations. The balance of contributors to takers is out of whack and until this is addressed national debt and all that ensues will just get worse. I have kept my opinions quiet for too long as have many of the great people of this nation. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, 6 kids and single suggests unfit mother to me.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118 at 20/08/2024 - 14:14
That is something of an outlier which in terms of all of the adjustments required, and the fact it is not in a hugely expensive area isn't the same as I was considering. When dealing with properties that have been modified to support those with disabilities it does raise a further point of additional spend by the authorities to adapt another property though which would be on top of the 20k amount put forward as the mean costs of homelessness

This is like a breath of fresh air . I`ve being doing DSS/ LHA/ UC for 25 yrs . The biggest hassle by far which makes people shy away is the lack of cohesive communication / understanding between the 3 parties involved . That is the council / tenant / landlord . The councils / DWP routinely refuse to engage with the LL. If they did then many tenants could stay housed if only there was dialogue which was open and transparent. I have engaged myself in the past the services in my area of local stalwarts just like Denzel and they as outreach workers assisted me to house the homeless and also prevent evictions of existing tenants. I employed them to liaise with the vulnerable tenants . They know the workings of the benefits system . They know about DHP and Funding Pots for deposits and RIA and how they work and how serving a sec 21 can keep someone in their home as it starts the 56 day clock ticking . It can save some of the massive TA bill for the council each month which in turn saves us the taxpayer . The two people I engaged had an in depth knowledge of the system and also had an empathetic nature to help tenants fill out forms and hold their hand through the process. It has benefits for all 3 parties and the wider community . I wish there was a nationwide network of Denzels .

I, as well as owning my own portfolio, source and manage properties for clients. They too are open to housing the homeless . If the system was overhauled and everyone worked together then an almost guaranteed rent stream structure could be put in place and then the PRS could help to house the thousands of vulnerable homeless living on the streets and in the hostels / hotels. My outreach workers have saved and made me thousands of pounds over the years . So I support and encourage all LL`s with issues in this area to look at his services.

From what I can gather Denzel, you are acting as the go-between the Council the LL & tenant, and from the example given in the post, in this case it worked.

All this though rests on a compliant tenant at the end of the day. There are many tenants that simply can't be bothered and will not help in securing funds that are available to them, as it is seen as only in the benefit of the LL. They will be left in situ no matter what and at the end of the day, still looked after when they are evicted.

I have tried to tell councils the same thing you do - that paying for the additional rent IS in thier interests as it stops another person ending up on their housing list. I remind them that even if this tenant were to be evicted, they would NOT be replaced by anyone from their list so their list will only increase. I have even done their maths for them using their own stats gained from FOI requests to show that it will cost them more if they do not pay the additional top ups etc.

It seems the only councils that 'get this' and may help the LL without necessarily the assistance or involvement of the tenant are those councils not in S14 measures. It can also help if you get the MP involved - showing them that by paying the extra top ups for the tenant the council SAVES money is to them a no brainer.

If only the council's liaised with LL's directly in the first place when situations like this occur.....

my only concern reading the post again is that it seems the 'deal' was only made on the basis that the LL offered another 2 year AST.

Surely that means the rent is effectively capped for the 2 years? The council must have only agreed to the extra top up on the basis there is no further increase in that period, as clearly the tenants would not be able to afford this knowing they cant afford the current one.

Given the way the whole S21/RRB is heading, is this really a wise move by the LL?

I assume there is a fee for Denzel's service? Where is the detail on this?

Reply to the comment left by Jason at 20/08/2024 - 12:56
Thank you Jason

Reply to the comment left by Jill Church at 20/08/2024 - 15:58
Hi Jill,

You're 100% right.... The advice and support we provide should be offered by councils. But for one reason or another housing officers are not providing the service they should be and as a result families are being needlessly made homeless.

Not true. Most landlords who have a bad experience in renting to tenants on Universal Credit will look to rent only to professional tenants. That will be one less home available for applicants on Universal Credit or Housing Benefit and also a family now in temporary accommodation. As previously mentioned the cost of this is at-least £20K per year to the tax payer.
Lastly, this has nothing to do with immigration. To be eligible for homelessness support you must have the right paperwork in place, otherwise you will not receive a penny from a council. Most of the support we provide actually goes to British and European citizens (those who have a right to remain).

✅3. Finally, we made an application for a Discretionary Housing Payment to make up the balance.
I note the word 'application'. Was one awarded?
DHP's are for a temp period only - usually 3 - 6 months only so did they get one for the whole 2 years? Doubtful as the councils don't get the funding in that way so where did the money come from if it were given?
So did the whole £700 rent increase get paid for the whole 2 years in the end?
On closer reading this makes me think this is just a can kicked down the road situation... Homelessness not prevented, just delayed?

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 21/08/2024 - 10:18
Thank you so much Jonathan, I really appreciate your kind words.