Stung by the £500pw Benefit Cap, no rent being paid – Help!

Reply to the comment left by "HB Welcome" at "11/08/2013 - 18:58":

Name me a council that doesn't use the strategy of insisting tenants remain in a property until eviction and only then will they assist the tenant.
So ALL rather than SOME is correct!!.....................unless you know different!!!!?

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Barrett" at "11/08/2013 - 19:06":

Paul - You genuinely do not have the faintest clue what you are talking about. Your two most recent comments are unfailingly inaccurate in every respect.

Reply to the comment left by "Adam Zeeblebum" at "11/08/2013 - 19:40":

Adam. Could you expand on that please?

Yep I agree; come on then tell me the issues that I have experienced with councils didn't happen!!!!!
Do you think I just make it up!!??

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Barrett" at "11/08/2013 - 19:06":

Paul, there is a world outside of Hertfordshire.

I accept that was your experience but not all councils advise this.

I raised this point precisely because I have asked my local (northern) council that very question.

Sometimes they will advise tenants to wait for a possession order depending on housing availability at that time. But they certainly do not routinely advise or practice this. This has been my personal experience with them on such occasions.

And will you please stop SHOUTING!!!!

Reply to the comment left by "HB Welcome" at "11/08/2013 - 20:21":

Well very quietly................................................... I believe mine is the usual experience and therefore can be relied upon to be any councils response.
Very few; if any councils behave as you have experienced.
You have been fortunate to say the least.
The vast majority of LL experience what I have as a norm!
It would be great if council guides were adhered to........................................................they just ain't!!

Well, this has been a very expressive thread, and so many posts!, I have read quite a few, but not all...

Firstly, having read some of Paul's first posts, where he suggests she moves to a less expensive property, has he not grasped that you cannot get a large family house for £30pw anywhere?...£130pw seems to me a very reasonable rent.

Although his diatribes may well offend and upset some people, I think it makes the discussion lively, but Paul, you only need to say it once!

Mick's post on the 7/8/13:
"Whereas these families were once attractive, I’ll now be looking for smaller families, but yesterday, this gal has been asking me for 2 years for house, she has SIX kids (another family), 4 under 16, one is disabled, so benefit cap problem solved. 2 over 18, one is gal who has kid who wants to stay with Mum, & 21 year old lad who epilepsy. So this is family I would take because no cap."

...made me think of India, where, if they don't have a disabled child, they won't get any money from begging for food.....God forbid the thought occurs to HB claimants here in the UK.

And Mark, you are spot on when you said the rent should be the first thing to pay...when I used to take less fortunate tenants it was the first thing I would try to educate them in..rent comes first....
...obviously this government is not a good role-model...rent comes last, buy everything else you need first..so Yes, I agree with Paul here!!!

The Benefit Cap, as I understand it was to try to cap extortionate HB in london.... why not just get a Fair Rent registered, the rent should then be paid first by the LHA, and the cap should be applied to her other benefits, perhaps on a scale of which ones are more important than others.

Anyway, getting back to the original problem, the eviction of the tenant and family....

Perhaps you could offer her a rent reduction if she makes up the rest from her other benefits, if she is not willing to compromise with you, and you with her, then the eviction will have to go ahead.
You said neither of you want to go ahead with this eviction, so gradually increase the rent over the next few years back to what it should be and she will gradually get used to paying towards it.
What you will lose in unpaid rent upto and after the eviction, theoretically offset against a lower rent and keeping your tenant.

I do agree, smoking 70 a day is a huge cost (and a waste of money), but it is the tenant's perogative if she thinks she can afford it without losing her home..it's her choice !!!!..but she may well lose the house, and the kid's to social services as well....does she think smoking is worth the cost to her ??

Perhaps the father(s) of the many children should be paying the shortfall if not all the rent rather than the government (hard working tax payer funded) ?

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "12/08/2013 - 13:45":

Hmmm; not sure about diatribes I am just making statements that are true and some people seem to think aren't!!!
They refuse to accept the majority correct public view on this situation; these tend to be the people that love spending other people's money on dissolute; dysfunctional social types...............................rather than give them a boot up the backside and force them to work whether they are better off or NOT!
Sometimes it is NOT always possible to have the better paying job and so we have to take what we can get, even if we would be no better off than if we are on benefits.
As for an affordable house; it is easy to find somewhere cheaper if you are subject to a benefit cap of £500 pw.
Lets us say that the HB element of the £500 is £45.00 pw; well that still means you have £455 of OTHER benefits.
So what you do is is use £105 of your other benefits to contribute to the weekly rent.
This leaves £350 pw for OTHER expenditure.
If this is insufficient TOUGH; you can either move to a cheaper area or cut back on things; use charity shops and adjust your lifestyle to one where having loads of kids will surely impact upon domestic circumstances.
Did this not occur to this silly tenant when she was knocking out kids right left and centre or did she perhaps think that by doing so she would never have to work and the state would pay for her lifestyle.
I think we all know the answer to that one!!
As has been mentioned why aren't the fathers contributing towards their offspring; ................I think we all know the answer to that one!!
So property is easily affordable within the OBC.
People need to stop obsessing about the HB element of the OBC
The fact that govt reduces this first is irrelevant; it is the total amount of monies available that is the deciding factor on where to live.
This is what will happen with UC.
Tenants will choose to move to a cheaper area as they will have more to spend on other things than rent.
£500 OBC per week is more than enough for a 4 bed property in the UK.
Yes it won't be in the bright lights and will most probably be some dump up North; so what, you live where you can afford, nobody forced this tenant to have so many kids.
Perhaps she should have paid more attention in school to the sex education classes.
NOBODY has the right to have has many children they like unless they have the economic wherewithall to provide for them WITHOUT the state being the main provider!!
Life is all about choices; she has made the wrong ones and will have to move whether she likes it or not.
I have NO sympathy for her plight!
She got herself into the situation.

Yes, I did say ‘she won’t’ in terms of as soon as most Landlords hear benefits ‘that’s approx 80% of ‘em that say no, according to recent figures, & then when she says SIX kids, u could take a few more % off that, & then when she says she has zero deposit or zero rent up front, I guess that’s only one muggins Landlord in Nottm ie. Me that may say yes.

I’ve never served as many section 21’s as I have in last few weeks. 2 to the benefit cap tenants.
And 1 to my respectable 45+ year old tenant who came back from pub & scratched 10 cars on the way back to his house, got CS peppered by the Cops, & next day the neighbours who’s car’s he damaged put one of his windows through, till they heard it was one of my houses & we’ve had deal they gonna’ leave him alone as long as he goes by the end of the month-Yes Mark, u like these stories, don’t u.

I normally do get it right, problem is when they’re in there, I sometimes let my heart be too nice too ‘em.
Yeah, I think my longest is 15 years now, in fact my first house I purposely bought to rent out, I bought it for them, I have many at 10 12 11 years etc. I do have some for only 2 months, but the majority are years, swapping houses with me often too.
Ha ha, not lose their job ‘cause not got one, I’ll remember that saying for mine.
Yes, I am thinking next few years of just keeping my better area ones & then just professionals, but then did think every 6 months or so, the don’t stay like benefit tenants, so to save work time there not dealing with benefit tenants, I’d be having the admin every 6 months on the moving.

I view the majority of my benefit tenants as special as I want to keep them, as they also view me & my houses as gold-dust.

I have standard questions to tenants too, & visit when I can-Common thing them fruit flies round the lights, tells me something. And when they tell me single parent, & I can hear boyfriend swearing in background. Most of mine come from recommendations from existing tenants or mates.

Well, 2008 was a good year for me ‘cause I bought another 15 in that year alone-Couldn’t refuse ‘em at the price I was being offered them.
I call mine my little factory, & my office is situated in the middle or the edge whichever way u look at it, works for me being 5 mins away, if builder has problem he wants to discuss.
Ha ha, no I do go away, had 2 ski holiday & 2 hot holidays & 2 weekends in this country so far, I mean’t by having the choice & time to fly to Australia or Mexico 1st class every month for 2 weeks at a time when I feel like it, at moment, can only go a week at time, ‘cause problems build up.

Wow, that’s a house, that’s where I should be every month.

Update on the Benefit cap, local small council now has TEN cases, seems promising on Discretionary-Time will tell by Friday hopefully.
She still han’t ruddy rang WTC.
I am suggesting pairs of houses, I have several where I have 2 or 3 houses on same street, some opposite each other, with no road in between, which would be ideal, but no, they are spoilt & want what they have.

Yes, the family with disabled kid etc. that is coming, I have 3-4 bed house for her. I have told her 4-5 bed house is coming up which she really should have considering how many there are-AND??? She don’t want the bigger one, she’s set her mind on this SMALLER one-And 4-5 bed one is MUCH bigger.