Universal Credit trial increases arrears by a factor of seven!

The Housing Benefit bill is out of hand due to greedy private landlords. Many of the houses being rented out by private landlords are old social housing that was sold off on the cheap by Thatcher.

I lived in a private bedsite for several years. It was run down and in need of urgent repair. The landlord wasn't interested in improving it. It was costing me £90 per week to live in that hovel.

As a single male, I was not a priority when it came to a council house. If I had qualified for a council house I could have had a one bedroom house, fully refurbished for £60 per week.

"""I inform my mortgage company that I will not be paying the mortgage because my tenant hasn’t paid me what do you think the mortgage company will say?
They certainly WON’T say, ‘Don’t worry about it, pay us when you can, no we won’t mark your credit file with a missed payment and no it won’t affect any future credit application with us or any other lender’………………………………………….yeah right!!
Why should a tenant expect not to be removed as soon as they don’t pay rent"""""

How long does it take for a bank to get you out of your property??? You can get a CCJ on the tenants name too.

Unfortunately the business you and i are involved in is fundamental part of a humans existence, and with it comes a set of responsibilities.If you dont want to deal with HB tenants then thats your choice. I dont know what your issue is.It has been said before we live in a country where we dont allow families to live on the streets and with that in mind we have to provide housing,and that brings us to Universal Tax Credits which is the point of this discussion. Unless this government changes course with its direct payment to vulnerable peole on HB then I like you will have to turn people away because they're on benefits. Then we will be back to the 80's where huge masses of families are living in B&B and you and i will be paying the bill through our taxes.Government since 1945 has always subsidized housing and in a civilised world always will.I think in those days the feckless poor were drinking all day.not doffing their caps to gents and the kids were running wild.

I agree with part of what you say Peter. The world we live in is not supplying low cost housing. Most of the housing supply has been left to the private sector. At the lower end it really is a problem.Some of the nasty comments on here come from LL's who probably deal at a higher end of the market. If UC is paid directly to tenants then unfortunately I will become less inclined to invest in that area and low income rental property will be left in the hands of the Rachmanns of this world {and u dont want that}
Failing the government building far more council housing {which is not going to happen} Youre left with private LL's. I think there should be more regulations regarding quality of property, loosen up planning restriction and strengthen both Tenants and LL rights. We need to proffesionalise our business far more.

are all the arrears due to tenants inability to budget and pay on time or are there delays and mistakes in Universal Credit administration?

I think you completely miss the point.
I have nothing against HB tenants per se providing they pass RGI checks or their guarantors do.
The REASON I MUST HAVE RGI is because of the useless eviction laws.
A CCJ against a HB tenant is a waste of time; I know as I have wasted my time and money on such things and more besides, absolutely useless.
I couldn't care or less whether my property is someones home.
It is only that as long as they PAY for it.
If they don't for whatever reason it is NOT their home and they should vacate immediately.
HB tenants know how the system works and so far it has taken me 10 months each to have non-rent paying tenants evicted; and these weren't HB tenants.
It might seem strange but if you make it easier for tenants to be evicted easily in the case of non-rent payment only then more LL will be encouraged to let to HB tenants.
Until eviction laws are changed LL will just not let to HB tenants.
It therefore makes sense to make eviction easier and then more rental property will be offered; especially to HB tenants.
It is pointless saying it is someones home because LL are just exiting the HB market so those HB tenants don 't get the chance of a home!

I dont really know your point Paul..One minute yr blaming HB tenants and next yr complaining about the eviction process. Which one is it? I prefer trying to evict a HB tenant because at leas i'll get most of the rent. If its the eviction process then thats another thread. This thread is about UC and the payment going to Tenants.If your point is to make eviction easier which will make the problematic tenants pay their rent[95% will keep paying its the 5% that struggle} it. wont. I've worked in this market for years and itt will cause deinvestment in properties that badly need it and social problems that[regardless what popular press say]are getting better.

NO I am NOT blaming HB tenants for anything.
It is the eviction process which conspires against HB tenants.
The likes of Shelter think that the eviction laws are needed to protect tenants from being evicted too quickly even if the eviction is required because the tenant refuses for whatever reason to pay rent.
No the eviction laws prevent LL renting to HB tenants as the LL knows how long it takes to get rid of a non-rent paying tenant.
This is why LL are withdrawing from the HB market.
How does the eviction process assist HB tenants source rental accommodation that LL have withdrawn from HB tenants!?
UC will make the existing bad situation even worse.
With direct payment being withdrawn when UC comes in will mean even larger losses as LL won't even receive the HB as a tenant is highly unlikely to pass the HB to a LL who is evicting them for non-rent payment!!
Effective immediate eviction need ONLY occur in the event of non-rent payment; all the other eviction processes may remain the same.
Of course there will be disinvestment in rental property for HB tenants.
If the LL can't get paid because the tenants don't and won't pay their rent and it takes ages to get rid of them; what is the point in a LL investing in the badly needed HB type accommodation.
As for the 5 % that will struggle to pay their UC to LL because they are dysfunctional and don't pay their rent that is their choice!
If their wrong choice of NOT paying causes them to be evicted that is NOT the LL fault!
The threat of immediate eviction is totally and absolutely linked with UC being paid and passed onto LL.
HB tenants are resourced with HB to pay the rent; if the tenant doesn't pay the UC to the LL they deserve to be evicted.
Most HB tenants will make a sensible choice and pay the LL the rent for the property they are using to live in.
For the others that don't pay; they will be making the wrong choice.
Life is all about choices and if these non-rent paying tenants make that decision then they should be on the street.
It will not be as though govt hadn't resourced the HB for that tenant!
UC will see LL issuing S21 about 9 months before the UC is introduced as at least after 2 months they should receive the LHA before eviction occurs.
LL don't want the risk of UC tenants when direct payments will be mostly abolished.
This is just a fact.
Of course what should happen is the govt should build about 3 million council homes and ensure they go to British citizens ONLY.
Anyone else can rent in the PRS.
It would do wonders for the economy; it would necessarily shrink the PRS, and it would mean the HB would effectively be recycled back to the govt rather than disappear into the pockets of private LL, which effectively is a total loss to the govt apart from a bit of tax!!
NONE of this will happen and the govt will find the HB bill increases as TA is used increasingly in the absence of PRS accommodation.
There will still be plenty of rental accommodation; it just won't be made available to HB tenants by LL because of the eviction laws.

@pj;
you're sounding like a tenant with a gripe. you are obviously not a landlord.

you simply haven't a clue, you're blaming Thatcher, greedy landlords and a state benefit system that does not pay on time. but not the tenant.
and to top this lot you want to strengthen tenants rights.

Oh what fools we are letting a mole into the camp. and wasting our energy trying to make you see sense.

whoever / whatever you are PJ, this is about economics.
not about your home, my asset, my property your house....it's about economics. pure and simple.
Landlords simply have to make a profit. they don't have to make megebucks, about £20 per month per property is quite good.
So when 1 tenant decides not to pay, say £500 in just one month, it will take the landlord 25 months of profit from another property to pay for his loss.
Multiply that by, say 6 months of unpaid rent and it's the landlord that goes hungry. bankrupt even. with the banks taking over his portfolio
AND EVICTING EVERY TENANT.
That's right. the bank can and will evict 20 tenants as a result of the actions( the lack of rental payments ) of just one very bad tenant.

so in effect, the innocent and good tenants could very easily end up with their lives ruined because of just one pratt.

that is what is at stake here.

if you want to help tenants, we must target the bad ones.

are you a bad tenant PJ ?

I'm agreeing with everything you say about UC Paul. It is going to cause chaos, especially to those of us who have a portion of our income that is paid directly to us from HB because of non payment of rent. Where I disagree with you when you say[I think] that one of the solutions is quick evictions and someone else on here saying criminal records for non payment of rents[which you can do now anyway, but is not worth the effort] Thats a seperate issue and will not effect the people who this whole UC thing is about.
It seems you are saying that you accept families living on the street and that if they havent played the game they should accept that. What ever you think of the morality of that its not going to happen, and to keep on talking as if it will is getting us nowhere. If we campaign as LL's especially ones who are effected by this UC have the government rethink its criteria regarding of direct payments to LL's. This is the one and only thing that i see as a major problem for me.
The reason I don't discriminate against HB tenants is because after 8 weeks of non payment I recieve the money direct. My biggest financial losses that i've made has always been low income, non HB, eligible for legal aid working tenants.
Simplifying the eviction process is desirable but so is a toughening of the criteria needed to be a LL. I agree with current ideas to give more security to tenants and to maybe look at 5 year contracts with protections for LL'S and tenants

Regarding Cosmos nonsense, what are you talking about....Without Thatcher and the access to funds and the current AST I would never have been a LL. When did I blame Thatcher? Not that i agreed with everything she did. £20 A PROPERTY PROFIT...c.mon I work in a fairly poor area and even when i was paying more for the property and paying 7% interest rates I was making more than £20 a property.

I think your the amateur LL that gives descent LL a bad name. Not all of us think like you. I see tenants as customers and treat them accordingly. When one doesnt play the game i deal with them. I make money and I'm proud of my properties.I dont judge my tenants by the worst tenant i've ever had. You sound as if you've got 1 or 2 flats above a shop and somebody didnt pay you and now yr distrustful and bitter. To be honest we need legaslation against Bad tenants and LL'S. That also would make more money for me.

@Paul Johnson - I would first like to pick up on the point you have made about five year tenancy agreements. I'm sorry, but they are not viable.First of all, mortgage lenders will not allow them and that's not going to change in my opinion. Even if they did, I would not offer them even though I am a portfolio landlord and I want good tenants to rent my properties forever. The reason is that it takes too long to regain possession for whatever reason, be in none payment of rent or a change in circumstances, the worst of all being death of a landlord. There is, of course, a massive list of circumstances between these two issues which might require a landlord to seek possession.

However, a solution does exist but for some reason seems to have been over-looked by the major Centres of Influence such as Government, Shelter, Crisis etc. Please search Google for "Deed of Assurance"

NOTE FOR ALL - some of the comments here are getting far too personal. Please stick to the debate and do so with professionalism and integrity. I appreciate this thread has touched a nerve, many of us are passionate about this topic and we want to share our strongly held opinions. I also appreciate that rants are sometimes a good way to let off steam but please think before you type and be proud of what you have written if you re-visit this thread 12 months from now.