Landlords discriminating against DSS tenants
Discussion
philv said:
Paying rent benefit to the tenant rather than to the landlord is rediculous.
It only increases the number of evictions.
It creates extra risk of eviction, when the government should be trying to keep people in their homes.
It was very short sighted.
It is OK if managed right. The tenant can choose either to receive the rent personally or direct it to the landlord. Sensible tenants will choose the latter, which the landlord will consider as part of the tenant selection process.It only increases the number of evictions.
It creates extra risk of eviction, when the government should be trying to keep people in their homes.
It was very short sighted.
Thus both the landlord and tenant can detect any issues early.
The drawback with the old system where rent was paid directly was the landlord could end up responsible for tenant dishonesty. IE tenant lost eligibility for payment six months ago but has just been discovered. Landlord has to potentially repay 6 months rent to DSS and chase penniless tenant...
eldar said:
The drawback with the old system where rent was paid directly was the landlord could end up responsible for tenant dishonesty. IE tenant lost eligibility for payment six months ago but has just been discovered. Landlord has to potentially repay 6 months rent to DSS and chase penniless tenant...
Nope. The landlord could (and can) only be held responsible for overpayment if the landlord could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the circumstances which gave rise to the lost eligibility.CoolHands said:
Prima facie I can see no reason why a landlord cannot put in place measures to ensure that benefit claimants perform as well as working people.If the tenant cannot or won't sign up to them, they are declined on that basis.
This will change nothing except the "No DSS" on adverts, which as we know is an outdated description of someone on benefits.
Louis Balfour said:
"No DSS" on adverts, which as we know is an outdated description of someone on benefits.
Yup, poor old George Michael has been dead nearly four years now, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX_zmcVE0Wc
"Hey everybody take a look at me,
I've got street credibility,
I may not have a job,
But I have a good time,
With the boys that I meet "down on the line"
"I said D.H.S.S.
Man the rhythm that they're givin'
Is the very best
"I said b one b two
Make the claims
On your name
All you have to do...."
Groat said:
eldar said:
The drawback with the old system where rent was paid directly was the landlord could end up responsible for tenant dishonesty. IE tenant lost eligibility for payment six months ago but has just been discovered. Landlord has to potentially repay 6 months rent to DSS and chase penniless tenant...
Nope. The landlord could (and can) only be held responsible for overpayment if the landlord could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the circumstances which gave rise to the lost eligibility.As for no DSS, someone needs to Inform the insurance industry as in a lot of cases their terms and conditions state you can only let to working tenants.
Those t
ts at Shelter will see this as a victory but nothing will change. No DSS will now become "sorry you don't meet the affordability criteria". dazwalsh said:
Groat said:
eldar said:
The drawback with the old system where rent was paid directly was the landlord could end up responsible for tenant dishonesty. IE tenant lost eligibility for payment six months ago but has just been discovered. Landlord has to potentially repay 6 months rent to DSS and chase penniless tenant...
Nope. The landlord could (and can) only be held responsible for overpayment if the landlord could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the circumstances which gave rise to the lost eligibility.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
You should focus your attention on Part 4. It isn't difficult to understand.
For example, when the overpayment has arisen because the claimant is (or has been) no longer living at the dwelling, the landlord will be held liable for repayment because landlords are expected to know who is or is not living in their dwellings.
But if the overpayment has arisen because, for example, the tenant has returned to gainful employment to the point of disentitlement to unemployment benefit then the landlord will not be held liable for the repayment because it is not reasonable for the landlord to have known about this return to employment.
There are SOME circumstances where the landlord is held liable for the overpayment and some where the claimant is held liable. And it is not always the landlord/agent recipient who is held liable. Far from it.
I accept that you may have been railroaded by your local council into repaying an overpayment unnecessarily, but don't confuse that with the reality of overpayment faced by landlords who know overpayment regulation in detail.
As to underwriters' rejection of DSS occupancy risk, let me ask you this: Do you seriously think that the dwellings occupied by the millions of benefit claimants in the UK are a)uninsured or b)insured by false declaration or c)insured but at penalised cost ?
Or: do you think that whilst there are some underwriters who won't accept DSS occupancy risk, there are others - many others - who will accept it or won't even require employment status of tenant to be declared?
Just imagine the havoc that will ensue for the 'no DSS' insurers and their victim landlord clients in times like the present when many people have taken tenancies as employed people but have become or are about to become unemployed during their tenancies!!!!
Edited by Groat on Wednesday 15th July 00:33
Groat said:
markiii said:
who does it pay it to?
In my case all HB and UC payments are made direct to the letting agent. 98elise said:
Groat said:
markiii said:
who does it pay it to?
In my case all HB and UC payments are made direct to the letting agent. Some tenants in receipt of benefits are okay. The councils often aren't and leave the tenant in a financial predicament from which they cannot extract themselves. It's the landlord who pays.
98elise said:
I'm my case it was to the tenant until they were 8 weeks (IIRC) behind. I then applied for it to be paid to me direct, shortly after their benefits were put non hold while something was clarified with the tenant, then they restarted weeks later at a significantly lower rate. The tenant was supposed to make up the difference between housing benefit and the rent. That was never paid.
It was not sensible of you to agree to a tenancy where the tenant was in receipt of the rent, unless there was a rent guarantor/guarantee of high quality. You should have confined your DSS tenancies to “golden ticket” only - ie those tenants whose attendant professionals/support workers produced letters requesting rent paid direct to landlord as being in the tenant’s best interests.You should not have allowed the arrear to run to 8 weeks. At the first default you should have requested the rent suspended as “at risk” which would have caused a delay but would have resulted in further payment being paid to you.
It also sounds as if your tenant was subsequently sanctioned. Which sounds as if you didn’t look into their circumstances closely enough at the outset.
In the current system none of this would happen. The defaulted payment would be repaid to you albeit in instalments by sanction on the defaulting tenant’s income benefits. And of course no further rent payments would be made to the tenant. Not that you should be agreeing to DSS tenancies unless the tenant ticks the ‘direct payment to landlord’ box.
It is, of course, madness to take on DSS tenancies where the tenant promises to make up rent shortfalls, and/or The rent is part HB and part from tenant’s own resources. These CAN work, but rarely do work smoothly and for any length of time.
Louis Balfour said:
Some tenants in receipt of benefits are okay. The councils often aren't and leave the tenant in a financial predicament from which they cannot extract themselves. It's the landlord who pays.
The administration of HB rent isn’t about the administrator being okay or not okay. 50 years ago maybe, but nowadays it’s a ‘computer says’ game with very little room for autonomous human override.So it becomes very much the responsibility of the landlord to know - and know in some detail - what any prospective DSS tenant will or won’t be entitled to.
Failure in that department certainly can and does lead to it being the landlord who pays. But it’s hardly the fault of either the administrative authority or the tenant if the landlord doesn’t really know how the system works, is it?
Groat said:
Louis Balfour said:
Some tenants in receipt of benefits are okay. The councils often aren't and leave the tenant in a financial predicament from which they cannot extract themselves. It's the landlord who pays.
The administration of HB rent isn’t about the administrator being okay or not okay. 50 years ago maybe, but nowadays it’s a ‘computer says’ game with very little room for autonomous human override.So it becomes very much the responsibility of the landlord to know - and know in some detail - what any prospective DSS tenant will or won’t be entitled to.
Failure in that department certainly can and does lead to it being the landlord who pays. But it’s hardly the fault of either the administrative authority or the tenant if the landlord doesn’t really know how the system works, is it?
I recall going to collect IN CASH from a council office the arrears that one girl had amassed. It was just before Christmas and she hadn't told me that she had been paying rent from her savings and had run out. I deducted what was owed and handed her the balance, and a lovely Christmas was had by all.
On other occasions tenants just cannot be bothered. Or are confused.
I cannot help but think that think we may look again at benefit claimants, if unemployment soars. But we are only too well aware that we will be dealing with feckless people who cannot deal with day-to-day life. That's just the council, the tenants are no better.
Groat said:
eldar said:
The drawback with the old system where rent was paid directly was the landlord could end up responsible for tenant dishonesty. IE tenant lost eligibility for payment six months ago but has just been discovered. Landlord has to potentially repay 6 months rent to DSS and chase penniless tenant...
Nope. The landlord could (and can) only be held responsible for overpayment if the landlord could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the circumstances which gave rise to the lost eligibility.eldar said:
Groat said:
eldar said:
The drawback with the old system where rent was paid directly was the landlord could end up responsible for tenant dishonesty. IE tenant lost eligibility for payment six months ago but has just been discovered. Landlord has to potentially repay 6 months rent to DSS and chase penniless tenant...
Nope. The landlord could (and can) only be held responsible for overpayment if the landlord could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the circumstances which gave rise to the lost eligibility.Of course there were very occasional ones that slipped through the cracks and along with others at dispute these could go to the appeal process.
The last overpayment I can recall disputing to appeal was years ago when the police sealed up a flat for a month or so in which the tenant was found dead and the circumstances required investigation. I appealed against the rent paid in respect of the period of investigation being considered overpaid. Can't remember but I think I lost that one.
The usual standard overpayment is when the rent comes in, say, on the 30th, month in arrears, and the tenant has left , say, on the 15th. At some later date the council often want reimbursed for the two weeks overpaid. Not really an issue to argue, is there?
I'd say the matter of overpayment is really pretty simple and the less simple ones can be quite interesting.
Groat said:
98elise said:
I'm my case it was to the tenant until they were 8 weeks (IIRC) behind. I then applied for it to be paid to me direct, shortly after their benefits were put non hold while something was clarified with the tenant, then they restarted weeks later at a significantly lower rate. The tenant was supposed to make up the difference between housing benefit and the rent. That was never paid.
It was not sensible of you to agree to a tenancy where the tenant was in receipt of the rent, unless there was a rent guarantor/guarantee of high quality. You should have confined your DSS tenancies to “golden ticket” only - ie those tenants whose attendant professionals/support workers produced letters requesting rent paid direct to landlord as being in the tenant’s best interests.You should not have allowed the arrear to run to 8 weeks. At the first default you should have requested the rent suspended as “at risk” which would have caused a delay but would have resulted in further payment being paid to you.
It also sounds as if your tenant was subsequently sanctioned. Which sounds as if you didn’t look into their circumstances closely enough at the outset.
In the current system none of this would happen. The defaulted payment would be repaid to you albeit in instalments by sanction on the defaulting tenant’s income benefits. And of course no further rent payments would be made to the tenant. Not that you should be agreeing to DSS tenancies unless the tenant ticks the ‘direct payment to landlord’ box.
It is, of course, madness to take on DSS tenancies where the tenant promises to make up rent shortfalls, and/or The rent is part HB and part from tenant’s own resources. These CAN work, but rarely do work smoothly and for any length of time.
Current tenant is employed, pays on time, and I never hear from him. Perfect.
98elise said:
It was a house I bought with the tenant in situ so I had no part in the vetting. The house came a decent discount so the risk was worth it.
Current tenant is employed, pays on time, and I never hear from him. Perfect.
Is this the one that cost £8k to put right when the DSS tenant got dislodged/left? Current tenant is employed, pays on time, and I never hear from him. Perfect.
Groat said:
98elise said:
It was a house I bought with the tenant in situ so I had no part in the vetting. The house came a decent discount so the risk was worth it.
Current tenant is employed, pays on time, and I never hear from him. Perfect.
Is this the one that cost £8k to put right when the DSS tenant got dislodged/left? Current tenant is employed, pays on time, and I never hear from him. Perfect.
Louis Balfour said:
We have started placing adverts without "No DSS" on them.
The stream of benefit claiming applicants is now constant.
It is vanishingly unlikely that we will accept any of them, but processing them and answering the calls is time consuming.
I've just had a property become vacant at very short notice, the DSS tenant has had to move at very short notice (a couple of hours) to escape domestic violence. Been a decent tenant, so sad to see her go, particularly like that.The stream of benefit claiming applicants is now constant.
It is vanishingly unlikely that we will accept any of them, but processing them and answering the calls is time consuming.
Rent up to date, just admin problems clearing her abandoned possessions and the like.
Had a stream of people knocking on the door asking if a) will it be up for rent, b)Will I have DSS c)Will I want references(!).
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff