Tenants and Housing Benefit and the lender

Hi Mark,

I have always thought this was a curiously simplistic criteria set by some lenders as well.

Like you say you can confirm a tenant is not in receipt of benefits at the start of a tenancy, but may not know if something happens later and what if it is just one partner.

I think the intention of the criteria is that you don't deliberately let to DSS tenants, but it would be interesting to see if this has caused a problem for any readers in the past.

It's even more interesting with insurance. When I renew my policy I'm asked who is on benefit and who's not. That will Then determine my premiums. What happens if I make a claim and I've stated the name is not on benefits and turns out he is and hasn't informed me ?

I've recently had this exact situation in the past year. I applied for a number of remortgages and only once we received the offers did we realise that housing benefits tenants were not acceptable to the lender.

Our ASTs do state that tenants must inform us if they make a claim for housing benefits and our lenders solicitor made us remove any reference to housing benefits from our ASTs despite the fact that all the existing tenants affected were outside their minimum term and therefore could easily be evicted using an accelerated possession order if necessary.

We then had to amend these ASTs and have our tenants sign the changes.

In addition we had one very good, long-term tenant who was in receipt of housing benefits paid directly to us. That was a sticky situation!

As Neil states, the lender is attempting to reduce risk and their main concern is that they want to reduce the overall risk by stopping landlords taking on these tenants in the first instance.

You cannot as a landlord stop a tenant who loses his job from claiming support they are entitled to, which is in effect a good thing as it reduces their likelihood of defaulting, but those tenants who start off as claimants statistically have higher rates of arrears/defaults.

Lenders are all about statistics, but let's be realistic they are not omniscient.

Hi Paul,

Virtually impossible to prove whether a tenant is receiving benefit. I always get confirmation from them in writing which proves I have taken reasonable steps to check the position.

I have encountered this problem a few times. The first time, the tenant and her husband split up leaving her destitute and with two small children. I didn't want to evict the family on moral grounds and legally it would have been difficult in any case. I think the correct answer is that you are expected to advise the building society of the tenant's change of circumstances and from what I have been told, they are generally OK about it. On that occasion I didn't advise them, and the tenant moved out nine months later of her own accord in any case.
I do have a mortgage with Skipton on a different property and a prospective tenant applied who works 16 hours a week but also gets some top-up benefits. I contacted Skipton and provided the tenant's circumstances and they said she was acceptable as she was not wholly dependent on benefits. However I do pay the DSS premium on the insurance because she's borderline by the insurance company's criteria and I didn't want to take any risks. She's an excellent tenant and I do find it annoying that we cannot exercise professional judgement and responsibility in these situations.
I think the best solution is to contact the building society and explain all the circumstances and get their guidance.

I have three flats in a bock of 16, and the management company asked me if any of my tenants were DSS. This was because the premium everyone would have to pay would be more if this was the case and then I would be in breach of my lease, because that says I can't do anything in my flats which will be detrimental to other residents.

I feel this is discriminatory as there are many reasons people are in receipt of benefits and not all of these reasons make them a higher risk. I also questioned whether they asked this of owner occupiers. In the end I refused to answer as I said I wouldn't necessarily know so could not be held responsible for the future financial position my tenants might find themselves in.

I know many landlords have had awful experiences letting to DSS, but I have found the 5 tenants I have at the moment (in freehold properties) are grateful for a decent home and are looking after things very well.

Is it legal to disciminate against someone with mental health issues or physical disabilities? If these things mean they are on benefits, surely it is not fair of insurance companies to discriminate against them because they are tenants not owner occupiers?

Reply to the comment left by "Alison King" at "10/03/2016 - 13:12":

I run a fairly large portfolio and it's virtually impossible to make sure people are not claiming unless I'm paid direct. Most people who get HB only get a portion of their rent paid by HB. IF they don't let me know how can I know. I would spend my whole time checking on their employment status and even that wouldn't be certain the only way is to take a much more expensive policy where it doesn't matter if there on benefits or not

While lenders might be ok about tenants who later find themselves needing to claim LHA, my experience of insurers (in general, not for this particular issue) is they will do everything to get out of paying claims, so just about any breach will invalidate the insurance.

However, I would be interested to learn otherwise.

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "10/03/2016 - 15:42":

I agree Lenders don't really want to know they just want paying and I wouldn't worry about them. The only time the lenders would be concerned is if they thought it wasn't insured.
But the issue with insurers is different. I've decided to take out policies to protect my properties wether tenants their HB or not.
My portfolio is towards the cheaper end of the market and it's too difficult to check everyone every month.

I think it's also wrong that once again large companies in this case insurers penalising the less well off. Someone has to pay the premiums and it'll be the tenant in the end. We just heard this morning about utilities companies charging more for pre payment meters, another way of ripping off the less well off.

Wow. This seems to be a real issue, particularly on the insurance side.

Thanks to everyone for their input. Our client has gone for further discussion with the lender - and no doubt insurer too.