Tenants “homeless” if rent is unaffordable? – new caselaw

Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 17/06/2019 - 11:02
Brilliant words Kate:
the court costs they've been lumbered with that they are now paying back at so much a week until the end of time as an attachment to earnings on their low paid job, the stress and trauma to their families, the fact that they are no longer able to apply for any private tenancy and are ineligible for any type of credit because they have an undischarged ccj.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 18/06/2019 - 00:28
Ha Ha & yes that's the same in Nottingham JC:

I never take tenants from their housing list as they only offer totally unsuitable ones.

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 18/06/2019 - 18:04
Certainly is Madness.
Here in Nottingham, we have Selective Licensing which is making loads homeless, they charging £780 a house & not inspecting the houses & making Landlords jump through hoops till 10pm.
Yet the other side of the Council, the Homeless section are begging & offering Deposit & rent up front to us Landlords to take the tenants that have just been evicted from the Licensing side of the Council. Nuts.
I'm begging 'em to talk together. The Homeless side daren't shout up cause scared for their jobs.
They aren't even asking Landlords why they've issued the Section 21. There is no record to say 85% increase in homeless cause of Licensing.
The Councillors just say complicated & issues like Universal Credit. Bullsxxt. I'm the biggest Landlord in Nottingham to be affected by both & UC yes is a problem, but not enough been affected by it yet. The homeless here is cause of Licensing.

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 18/06/2019 - 20:57
Great words Monty:
*No new DSS tenants.
*Gradual phasing out of existing DSS.
*Selling up as appropriate.
*Getting out of licensing areas (last one left in Nottingham!).
*Only taking on new tenants who I am 99% sure I'll never have to evict.
*Not converting or building any new homes, or ever likely to do so again.
*Spending my working capital on improving my own homes for once.
-And I'm really enjoying spending it, I've finally got Sky telly, just like my DSS Tenants!

Yes, we aren't taking these vulnerable tenants any more, they the real losers, we will always manage, survive, I will still eat, drink, have shelter, go on holiday, the Council & Govt measures are taking everything away from those at the bottom of the housing chain.

And yes ha ha, I was the last of out of all me tenants to get Sky TV. Ruddy expensive in't it.

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 20/06/2019 - 07:52
Monty,

U was being polite.

I'd say 7 times more likely to be evicted.
15 times more to be in arrears.
11 times more in the day.
And my working Letting Agent tenants cost me 10mins per year. My HB lot each one several of them 3 hours pw.

And yes why don't they come talk to us. We are here. I'm available Mon to Fri 8 to 5. If they sort out direct payment on UC, I'll even talk to 'em Sat morning.
Frank Fields MP who was chairing that enquiry did contact me & ask for some words, experiences etc., what he's done with my words I don't know.

Back to the main post:

Gone are the days where HB used to pay for your rent. And hopefully this case may bring it more to the forefront when this ridiculous 5 year benefit freeze ends or should be before, to bring the LHA rates up to proper rents. Cause if private working people are getting all the houses cause they can afford it cause they pay all the increased costs that's Govt and Councils are putting on Landlords rented accommodation which more or less immediately impacts on the rent the tenant pays, this leaves the HB tenant not being able to afford anywhere, unless they don't eat or gas electric etc.

Brilliant detailed explanations Monty in both those two post! And I absolutely agree, licensing is the biggest scam yet! It’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic what the government is doing to the rental sector and how they won’t stop “helping” benefits tenants right out of a home and into emergency accommodation. 🤬

There are some very interesting and helpful comments in these replies, but few seem to have grasped the enormity of this case law (Samuels, Tinn, Hawthorne). It is now seriously arguable that ALL tenants on income based benefits, where the Housing Benefit does not cover the full rent, are legally homeless.

They are legally homeless, even when they have a tenancy/home, because it is not affordable. If it is not affordable, then it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy it, (as to do so would mean they have to use their food money to pay the rent top up).

With the Local Housing Allowance being so much lower than actual rents, the HB/UC very rarely covers the full rent, so where it does not cover the full rent, then the tenant could make a homelessness application to the Council on the basis that the rent is unaffordable and it is therefore not reasonable for them to continue to occupy the property. - This would then put a legal duty on the Council to correct this position (prevent this homelessness), e.g. by paying the full rent to the landlord or rehousing the tenant.

Reply to the comment left by Robert Mellors at 23/06/2019 - 20:56
Now that’s what I’m talking about! Robert is the guru...

Reply to the comment left by Robert Mellors at 23/06/2019 - 20:56
Rob,

Would be nice if they paid the full rent while they still living there, wun't it. Not DHP though, something permanent.