Shelter ask for Landlords views

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 19/06/2019 - 23:45
The 4 bed rate for my area is over £1000. Unsurprisingly a typical LHA tenant does not have the £3,000 you suggest to give you upfront ! So that wont work I`m afraid . Thats just one reason its an added risk to take DSS so that is why some LL`s legitimately discriminate . LHA is paid in arrears by the council so by default most LHA tenant breach their AST`s and are constantly technically in arrears. Its about managing that risk if one chooses to do so and i wouldnt blame a LL one iota if they decide they didnt want that extra risk in their strategy

The LHA tenant may give their permission yes to share to the council but this is just about progress of the claim . Its not full sharing at all though. The council even if you get hold of them still wont share personal or financial details of the claimant so DD is limited. The council has a turnaround target of 10 days for an e mail . A good employer I get the reply the same day . So for a £650 rent thats £213 potential loss of rent for a DSS tenant v a working one . Again a reason why a LL may legitimately discriminate against DSS

And yes a working tenants rent is paid in effect by their employer . That`s the whole point though, I can check out that employer and get evidence of employment and interview them and get a reference from them etc . I do not have that luxury with the council as they blank me and do not fully engage like a good employer would.

And yes you help fill out the form with them. Thats an added cost though to you in time . I used to do that as well but I now employ on an ad hoc basis a support worker to do that for me. That costs. Again another perfectly legitimate reason why a LL could choose to discriminate against a DSS tenant

One has to compare like for like on all aspects when interviewing tenants and it is clear that DSS currently carries extra burdens and risks that many LL`s will not want to deal with that and they dont have to. Shelter need to appreciate that .
A helluva lot of work has to be done to bring those risks more in line and currently with the advent of UC the risks are getting even greater so the risk gap is widening not narrowing .

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 20/06/2019 - 01:52
I think you have pinpointed a key difference there between the attitude and motivation of an employer, who of course is indirectly paying the rent, and that of the council. A good employee is an asset to be retained so it is in the employer's interest to see them housed whereas the LHA claimant is a liability to the council, ideally to be shifted off their books and into a job or, failing that, paid no more than absolutely necessary, which logically means they are motivated to be unco-operative or even obstructive.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 20/06/2019 - 01:52
I concur JC all that u say. If me & U, HB LHA UC experts for 20+ years are now shying away from UC, what about the others that may have took them? They got no chance now.

Amelia, UC won't talk to us at all now unless the tenant puts explicit consent on their journal & WE GET ONE PHONE CALL. Ha ha that is it, u don't solve it on that phone call, you've had it. I We will get this changed eventually, but I've got no more fight left in me fighting for hours & weeks & years to get HB stuff changed. Which I have. But it's like starting all over again with UC. They have learned nothing from the history of HB over the last 20 years, where homeless ensued, then HB listened & said Landlord may be right, they implemented, & things improved, homeless reduced. UC has gone back 20 years.

And Old Mrs, good words.

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 19/06/2019 - 23:45
I would like to make the following points in reply to your post:
• If I asked a benefits tenant to pay 3 months in advance and relied on benefit tenants taking up my property, most of my properties would be permanently empty. I don’t think it is much worse than saying “No DSS”
• I always ask to see the last 3 months of the tenant’s bank statements and very few of the benefit tenants have more than £100 in their accounts and most are near the balance of £0 and some are in overdraft. I tend to avoid the ones who have an overdraft but even then, sometimes accept them based on my gut feeling. May not sound like a good way of taking tenants but over the years having gained experience, it seems to have worked for me. It is Universal Credit that has destroyed everything in respect of experience, gut feeling, etc. It is designed so that a Landlord may be robbed.
• I have many benefit tenants. When I was dealing with Housing Benefit it was superb in that, I could engage with the council and each and every tenant signed a letter which stated that it was a condition of the tenancy that the rent had to be paid to the Landlord and in the letter there was included the law that stated words to the effect that the council should pay the rental benefit to the Landlord and in including the law, the rent was always paid to the Landlord. The letter also stated that the Landlord could act on behalf of the tenant and discuss the tenant’s benefits which worked out quite well. This is something that just does not work with UC.
• Under the HB system I had many tenants who were there for years and it was not usual to have some tenants for 6 years and above and my longest living tenant who was on benefits was there for 13 years
• With HB if the council was not following the right procedures, one could appeal against their decision and the system seemed reasonably fair in this respect.
• One drawback that I found with HB is that if the tenant had left without informing the Landlord, the council would not inform the Landlord and the Landlord often found out about 3 months later when a council bill arrives or HB sent a letter requesting money back due to an overpayment. Even then, the council would not verify that the tenant had actually left if asked and the Landlord would end up with the problem as to whether they should apply for possession of the property or not as, the tenant very often left things which could be deemed as still living in the property.
• In dealing with HB tenants although, I have painted a good picture above, I can say that had HB continued I would never advise any inexperienced Landlord to take on a HB tenant as unless one kept up with HB regulations and was very thorough with them, one could lose a lot of money.
• What I found was that once the HB tenant started work that is when the rent arrears started as I learnt that the culture is different for a regular non-working tenant who gets a job and a regular working tenant. A regular working tenant generally knows how to budget, and a benefits tenant generally is much less experienced in budgeting and often spends the money or probably feels that is their money as they earned it and the responsibility for the rent is the governments.
• Universal Credit has been an absolute disaster. I have found that it is not possible to speak to DWP on anything even if a letter is signed by the tenant giving permission. UC is so ridiculous that I have had on numerous occasions where a tenant was applying for UC and had a tenancy agreement clearly showing the rent & deposit and tenant and landlords name and signed by both, the officer dealing with the case would ask for a letter from the landlord asking if the tenant has moved into the property and actually has a tenancy.
• I have found on many occasions and even currently the tenancy starts of with the tenant being in arrears as although, the tenant is given the first months rent in advance and deposit by the council, UC often forgets to pay the first month’s rent and ends up never paying it.
• With UC when the tenant is more than 2 months in arrears and the landlord applies for the payment to be paid to them, UC often continues to pay the rent to the tenant and this could go on for months.
• To date, I have never had a tenant pay the last month’s rent when they leave the property as apparently, that months rent is stopped and paid for the new property immediately after the tenant informs UC. I don’t know if this is true. All I know is that I never get the last month’s rent which is something I did get. I wonder if there is anyone who knows more on the reasons for this.
• With UC there is no appeals procedure or anyone or body that can help you. I have spent hours on each tenant attempting to get money that was due to me and have lost thousands of pounds due to either errors made by UC or them just ignoring my letters. More recently, I turn away a lot of UC tenants (something which I never did with HB & at one time continuously took tenants with just the deposit) and only consider those who have a guarantor or are able to pay rent three or more months in advance. This only causes homelessness which is due to the government and their advisors (one of them being Shelter) creating a system where Landlords are not only exploited but robbed,
As usual, I intended to raise a few points on DSS tenants but it is a subject that one could go on endlessly and I believe it is a sore subject created by those who say they are trying to prevent homelessness.

Reply to the comment left by Clint at 20/06/2019 - 09:33Another excellent well set out post .
I am / was a die hard LHA LL and would still be, but UC is my breaking point and i am letting the majority go and replacing with working tenants . I am clearly not alone and this is one reason my mole tells me that my council has currently 1,500 Sec 21`s on their desk with 12 being added every day .
Unless drastic changes are urgently made terminal damage is being done to the HB sector with only a few pockets of resistance left I sense. Maybe this is in fact the governments plan and they want to take their tenants back under their control so they dont have to deal with switched on business entrepreneurs and only deal with often the most vulnerable people in our society who unfortunately do not always have the will and resources to fight back.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 20/06/2019 - 10:04
Hi Jonathan

I follow your logic but Government has no housing resources to accommodate such people, so how might that work even it it is their plan? I’m pretty sure the ‘build to rent’ developers won’t take them, because from what I’ve seen they are all aiming at the upper end of the market with large blocks which include concierge services and gyms

Reply to the comment left by Clint at 20/06/2019 - 09:33
"To date, I have never had a tenant pay the last month’s rent when they leave the property as apparently, that months rent is stopped and paid for the new property immediately after the tenant informs UC."

That fact alone is enough for any landlord legitimately to refuse DSS tenants. In what other area of life is a supplier expected to forego the last month's payment? If the Government wants landlords to accept DSS tenants they need to realise that landlords are the tenant's largest creditor and an involuntary creditor at that. If the tenant runs out of cash he doesn't get credit from the supermarket, off-licence or pub. But he gets credit from the landlord.

Landlords should not have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to get paid and they should not be subject to clawback if they have done nothing wrong.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 20/06/2019 - 10:20
My council are looking to buy back PRS houses with tenant in situ as part of a solution to halt the mass of sec 21`s being issued. I am meeting with them next month . They are producing a two year secure tenancy package and say they have now overcome a administrative hurdle in this respect so they dont get two tied in to a long term obligation to house them .

I also suspect as the situation gets worse before it gets better councils will start to buy in multi cheap flat pack / kit houses themselves to house the homeless . Maybe similar to these
https://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/politics/worthing-set-for-more-than-160-ikea-flat-pack-affordable-homes-1-8953360
Whether they will go it alone with public funds taking it out of the money they save paying me I am not sure . I think some developers /investors will see an opportunity to JV with the councils with these type of cheap and cheerful units.

I have completed the survey but have been filled with dread ever since. Will this somehow be able to spin our answers to once again reflect negatively on LL's? What about if we selct the box's agreeing to media interviews/blogs/surveys etc!?

Reply to the comment left by Joe Robertson at 20/06/2019 - 10:59
If they do spin it, that will be the last time they get any cooperation from landlords.