Test case for landlords under EU Human rights act possible?

Yes, Mark, you are quite correct - once a tenant misses the second payment date, serve a s.8 and ask for direct payments. Landlords must make sure though that they have a very clear payment record, showing sums outstanding. There should be no argument about direct payments under those circumstances - though have been approached by one landlord who says he was refused direct payment, despite a clear rent account!

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Betton" at "17/07/2015 - 12:17":

Surely using a letting agent must make this easier because their statements are proof?
.

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Betton" at "17/07/2015 - 12:17":

Hi Sharon

Presumably if the landlord asks for 2 months rent in advance, then the request for direct payments could start after 1 day of the tenancy? Also, if landlord makes it a condition of granting the tenancy that Housing Benefit will be paid direct to the landlord, then this is also valid grounds for asking the council to pay the landlord direct?

If, in either of the circumstances above, (and after the landlord has requested payments to go direct to landlord) the Council make payments to the tenant instead of the landlord, does the landlord have any legal redress against the Council? (e.g. would this amount to maladministration?) Should the council make a further payment to the landlord for that same period (when they've already paid the tenant, but tenant has spent it on other things), and if so how do we persuade them to do this?

Just make it a clause of the tenancy and have it paid direct from the very first payment.

Even in cases where I have inherited a tenant and a tenancy without such clause, provided they are outside of the initial fixed term (and occasionally not), make it a clause of their ONGOING tenancy that any/all HB payments are made direct to you.

Robert, I cannot speak for how housing benefit deal with bi-monthly tenancies, but at a recent meeting I attended with the DWP I was told this would not be acceptable. I think a case could be made if the tenant has had a tenancy and been paying the rent 2 months in advance, but not if he has paid nothing himself and has just been waiting for the benefit to come through.
Luke, you are making the case that so many landlords have made - direct payment to the landlord avoids at least some rent arrears and is better, in that case, for both landlord and tenant. Unfortunately, the Government has chosen to ignore landlords (possibly becasue they know tenants so much better than them!) and have said that Housing Benefit and Universal Credit should, as far as possible, go to the tenant. A clause in the tenancy agreement is not a justifiable reason why the rent should be paid to you, though existing debt, history of rent arrears, drug or alcohol dependency are.

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Betton" at "17/07/2015 - 12:52":

I have upwards of 100 tenants whose HB is paid directly to me and has been from 'day 1' because of this clause.

I have 'A claim form for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction' booklet in front of me, here is an extract...

"We will pay you direct, unless you are classed as 'vulnerable' (for example you do not have a bank account, have been made bankrupt or have a drug or alcohol addiction), in which case we may be able to make payments direct to your landlord. We will be able to pay your landlord direct if it is a condition of the tenancy (this applies whether you are a new or existing tenant)."

As sceptical as I am about the success of UC, I have one tenant who is already receiving UC. As he is in arrears, it is paid direct to me (the HB element) and because of the past arrears between 10 & 20% of his remaining UC allowance is also forwarded to me to assist with clearing the arrears. If this is how UC is supposed to work and how it will continue to operate, I'm all for that.

You said it Luke - you have 1 tenant on UC. The others must therefore be on housing benefit which is administered locally. Your good reputation may be sufficient for local officers to make the decision to pay you direct - the quote you have given clearly states it should go to the tenant in cases of vulnerability. Under UC, it will be administered nationally and without vulnerability or rent arrears, will go to the tenant.

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Betton" at "17/07/2015 - 14:18":

Unless it is a condition of being granted the tenancy, as Luke has correctly stated.

I also have this as a condition in my occupancy agreements, and I am paid the HB direct (except occasionally when the HB dept make a mistake and give the first payment to the tenant). I deal with very transient residents, so I guess I've had maybe 200+ residents in the past 2 years, of which about 95% are on HB, and the HB comes to me direct. However, I do also list the vulnerability reasons as well as stating that it is a condition of being granted the tenancy. I think the HB regs were amended a couple of years back to enable payment to the landlord when it is a condition of being granted the tenancy.

Hi all
It has taken me 5 months to evict a tenant under normal section 21 rule. She had been told by the local council to stay put until a court order was obtained against her. I engaged my solicitor initially as I guessed there would be problems with her moving out. She refused to co-operate with the council - she is eligible for social housing and stopped paying her additional rent - most was paid for by HB. It has cost me about £950 with no hope of getting any cash back as she is only now on benefits!! I will not - sadly - take HB tenants again
Pru

Reply to the comment left by "Pru Counsell" at "24/07/2015 - 11:44":

Hi Pru - I would pursue her for it - even if you get a small amount per month in the end.