Universal Credit The Elephant in the Room

Paul, your business model is exactly right for your circumstances. I am pleased that you are beginning to realise that other people with other business models in other parts of the country who provide homes to LHA claimants also have good business models. It's just a shame that you have a seemingly unshakeable perception that all LHA claimants are scavengers who have no respect for their own well being and other peoples finances and property. Two of my employees are LHA claimants. One is a single Mum to a diabled child, she works part time in accounts. She is totally reliable, honest and trustworthy. I would let one of my properties to her in a heartbeat.

Yes I hear what you are saying Mark; but I can only quote from my direct experience of claimants.
Perhaps it is the area they come from that causes the issues.
When you have lost £50000 and 2 properties with an additional loss of £60000 due to 2 claimants and have a charge hanging over your residential accommodation which could mean you are homeless if property prices increase, you do have a slightly different perspective on things.
These LHA tenants, 1 is dead and the other 3 are are renting from another LL with  no cares whatsoever.
The damage these types of tenant caused is out of all proportion to the rent ever received!
RGI is the only way to go as far as I am concerned.
Most LHA claimants won't pass such checks or their guarantors if any which means defacto I will not be taking any on at the outset of the tenancy.
Yes they become LHA claimants but if I do not receive full rent within 90 days I will claim on my RGI.
I have no choice as I have a very much hand to mouth existence.
So for all LHA LL all power to them but I prefer to stick to PRS tenants who can pass and qualify for RGI or their guarantor.
I would love to have a large sinking fund to facilitate tenants financial circumstances when they hit hard times.
My days of being a good samaritan are over.
I think to have lost over £850000 and 15 years and ongoing of my life being a good samaritan is sufficient reason to cause me to change my ways.
So from now on no mercy.
It is pay up or get out.
RGI will enforce this situation.

I do realise that misfortune may occur to the best of us; I am a prime example of this.
However I will not let such misfortune happen to me again.
So because of the risks I have to take a tough line on any claimant not because I wish to per se but because RGI forces the issue.
I am very sorry for these unfortunate tenants; however I have no room for sympathyas RGI won't allow it.
I do not intend to take on a tenant who does not have an active RGI policy in place on them.
As regards possession of a property I couldn't care or less as it will be down to the RGI company.
It could take 4 years to evict, I wouldn't care as my rent and costs would be paid.
I have every confidence in you and your abilities to come up with some workable solutions to this sword of damocles, called UC!?
I do appreciate that eventually something should be worked out to everybody's satisfaction; although I have to quote LHA, that did not work out did it?
So I am perhaps a little cynical that things will work better this time, suficient for me to consider LHA /UC claimants.
If you don't mind I will sit on the side-lines and watch as things unfold and learn from the experience of others before I consider dipping a toe into the benefit world again.
You could call me a bit of a coward and yes I suppose I am; however after what I have gone through these past years I think I have every reason to be a bit of a shrinking violet!!!?
I am afraid I no longer have the chance to sypathise with tenants' unfortunate circumstances;  much as I'd like to.
I am therefore forced to manage in a prescriptive way, which for me is disappointing as that is not who I am.
Circumstances however force me to take a jaundiced view of LHA/UC claimants, no matter how arrived at.
That is sad but that is unfortunately the case with me.
Oh well!, onward and upward!
I look forward to to your informative and helpful posts along with the other regular contributers.
You along with the others really do tell it how it is and such information I can assure you continues to inform and assist me.
Indeed out of all the forums this site continuse to be the most informative and instructional to the likes of me; a little LL
Yours along with others posts are always looked forward to; you always have something worthwhile to say; don't let that WI-FI break down again!!!!
I await with much interest what you come up with regarding CU.
You will always have in me an avid reader of your posts.

I do realise that misfortune may occur to the best of us; I am a prime example of this.
However I will not let such misfortune happen to me again.
So because of the risks I have to take a tough line on any claimant not because I wish to per se but because RGI forces the issue.
I am very sorry for these unfortunate tenants; however I have no room for sympathyas RGI won't allow it.
I do not intend to take on a tenant who does not have an active RGI policy in place on them.
As regards possession of a property I couldn't care or less as it will be down to the RGI company.
It could take 4 years to evict, I wouldn't care as my rent and costs would be paid.
I have every confidence in you and your abilities to come up with some workable solutions to this sword of damocles, called UC!?
I do appreciate that eventually something should be worked out to everybody's satisfaction; although I have to quote LHA, that did not work out did it?
So I am perhaps a little cynical that things will work better this time, suficient for me to consider LHA /UC claimants.
If you don't mind I will sit on the side-lines and watch as things unfold and learn from the experience of others before I consider dipping a toe into the benefit world again.
You could call me a bit of a coward and yes I suppose I am; however after what I have gone through these past years I think I have every reason to be a bit of a shrinking violet!!!?
I am afraid I no longer have the chance to sypathise with tenants' unfortunate circumstances;  much as I'd like to.
I am therefore forced to manage in a prescriptive way, which for me is disappointing as that is not who I am.
Circumstances however force me to take a jaundiced view of LHA/UC claimants, no matter how arrived at.
That is sad but that is unfortunately the case with me.
Oh well!, onward and upward!
I look forward to to your informative and helpful posts along with the other regular contributers.
You along with the others really do tell it how it is and such information I can assure you continues to inform and assist me.
Indeed out of all the forums this site continuse to be the most informative and instructional to the likes of me; a little LL
Yours along with others posts are always looked forward to; you always have something worthwhile to say; don't let that WI-FI break down again!!!!
I await with much interest what you come up with regarding CU.
You will always have in me an avid reader of your posts.

And to think that all this could be avoided if tenants were allowed to tick that little box that used to be on the form saying "Rent to landlord".

Tenants had the 'Choice', now they dont. Whats the difference to a person's money management/responsibility skills, which the government wants to inculcate in those on benefits or me, as a worker, setting up a standing order?

I hear you Paul and I understand. You simply want security like RGI, which is a sensible precaution, a sound bit of business. What would help is if insurance companies didnt demonise benefit tenants by not granting RGI. If UC works like a wage, surely this then puts people on benefits, on par with those in full time work, so what is the difference from an insurance perspective? Their prejudice! against people whose only crime is not having a job.

I'm not naive, of course their are scroungers on benefits, people who wouldnt work even if there were jobs out there but only a percentage. I work with them all day long and at root they seem to lack education or literacy skills and often have drink and drug problems. The rest? Just people desperate to get back into work.

The problem with what is being pushed by government and the press is the notion that to be on benefits = rioter/social problems and its not just landlords who get affected by this perception, its also some buy to let lenders, banks refusing to give bank accounts, employers.

I dont know why government dont go the whole hog and just force the unemployed to wear a yellow star sewn onto their coats.

UC is going to be a problem not just because of the way it will be paid but the fact that underneath that system the money people will receive will actualy be cut. A lot of people will simply recive less as a single payment than when it is cacluated, as now, using JSA/ESA/DLA etc.

In a sense whether or not landlords will let to them is a bit of a red herring, the real issue being if they cant afford the rents what will they do? And who will be picking up the fallout from that? The good old councils, who everyone hates but who by law cant turn their backs and have to provide statutory services even when they dont have the money to do so.

Its not simply a case of "To let to LHA? to not let to LHA?", THAT is the question.

As I said Paul, your model is right for you, I have no interest in trying to convert you.

All I ask is that next time you think about making generalalised sweeping statements about LHA claimants, please remember that the lady in my accounts department who I have known for over 15 years is reading them and getting offended and also that there are many others like her.

I don't think it should be a star; it should be a can of special brew!!!?
LOL
I think you are absolutely correct in that LHA/UC claimants should be able to obtain RGI.
If they have passed the rent on always why shouldn't they have a good rent credit history.
I agree with your wage analogy; just because it it is benefit rent ,it doesn't mater.
All a RGI company is concerned with is will the tenant pay the rent.
If RGI was achievable it would give confidence to LL to take on claiamnts.
It would me!
When you think about it these claimants are all govt workers on gardening leave but being paid full wages.
They are a better risk than the PRS!!!!?
And don't go around offering practical solutions like you did at the top of your post.
Management can't have oiks like you coming up with ideas to solve obvious problems.
They have to justify their wages you know!.
Don't get above your station ,as you never know being a worker at the coalface so to speak, you might start coming up with all manner of practical solutions to perrenial problems.
Management don't like knowalls!!!?

No offence intended just the resultant effect of my bad experiences with them, which I appreciate cannot be deemed as representative of the the tenant type.
It must suely be noteworthy to be coghisant of all difficulties faced by LL with different tenant types.
Only out of such awareness may strategies be developed to prevent what happened to me from happening to other LL.
Not to bring such circumstances and the consequent results to other LL attention would be doing them a diservice.
To learn from the mistakes of others, in this case me, is surely beneficial, regardless of the effect it may have on similat tenant types.
Unfortunately for me and many others like me; we have suffered terribly at the hands of these tenant types.
To have a balanced perspective is clearly the right approach ; but to ignore the worst case scenarios caused by these tenant types is surely not going to assist any of the relevant parties.
I think education  and understanding about the problems we as 2 paticular groups face can only lead to a better appreciatiuon of what we are up against.
Which like it not will cause certain prejudices to be evolved..
The only way of trying to assist the situation is to sit round with your proverbial cup of tea and determine how things may be managed for the benefit of all concerned.
A tall order I know.
Perhaps a post from a LHA tenant perspective would be of interest to inform the more cynical of us , based on our bitter experiences.
It would certainly be of interest to me to hear what the other side has to say.
Perhaps additional understanding may persuades some us to adjust our way of thinking.
I certainly am always open to informed debate, which may well assit me in the long run.
So apologies for any upset caused; we really would like to hear from the tenant side.
It is just plain unfortunate that my perspective has been clouded by my bitter experience.
I cannot undo that experience, I wish I could; I would be quids inby now!!

Understood Paul. The lady working in my accounts team who claims benefits has rented for the whole of her life. She looks after the property, lives within her means and her Mum (a homeowner) is her guarantor. The guarantee has never had to be called upon.

She now rents through an ARLA agent.

Prior to that she rented for me for nearly 10 years. When I got divorced the judge granted that property to my ex-wife and they didn't get on so she moved. That was a major upheavel as her kids were both in local schools and she didn't want to move them. She managed though and found a nice property about half a mile away. Three months into the tenancy the landlord decided to sell the property and served a section 21 so there she was house hunting again. OK she had three months to move but for a single Mum with two kids, one disabled, claiming LHA the stresses on her were immense. She had to find another property and the money to move again which isn't cheap.

Hopefully she's found a landlord now who will rent to her long term. That's the other side of the coin.

By the way, with the guarantee from, the letting agent managed to get RGI protection for the landlord.

That's the other side of the coin.

Also, she doesn't drink special brew! Neither does she have a shabby dog and sit on a grotty sleeping bag outside Primark begging for money at the weekends.

If you were to walk into my office you would not be able to pick her out.

Perhaps with your knowledgebase you might be able to persuade a RGI company to cover LHA tenants
Now that would be a deal breaker.
LL would return to the LHA market and tenants would know providing they passed the LHA on and conformed to their AST they should be pretty secure.
This would benefit both parties; but perhaps a possible big ask.
Could Let Alliance be the 1st to offer RGI to LHA claimants!!!?

As a complete aside were you asking a little while ago for some potential employees.
Just that someone I know might be of interest; just mentioning on the offchance.