Landlord to evict 200 tenants - because they received housing benefit

Buy-to-let property supremo shuts door on housing benefit tenants
One of Britain's best-known landlords, who owns nearly 1,000 homes, has sent out 200 eviction notices

One of Britain's best-known landlords has issued eviction notices to every tenant who is on welfare, and told letting agents that he will not accept any more applicants who need housing benefit.

Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare. He says the move is purely an economic decision and points out that private landlords are running a business.

"Rents have gone north, and benefit levels south," he said. "The gap is such that I have taken the decision to withdraw from taking tenants on housing benefit. From what I can gather just about all other landlords have done the same. Our situation is that not one of our working tenants is in arrears – all those in arrears are on housing benefit."

A key factor for Wilson and other landlords is that it is impossible to obtain rent guarantee insurance for a tenant on housing benefit. This type of insurance is sold to landlords and is designed to cover the rent if the tenant stops paying for any reason.

Another issue Wilson raises is the number of tenancy applications landlords receive for each property.

"Tenants on benefits are competing with eastern Europeans who came to the UK in 2005 and have built up a good enough credit record to rent privately. We've found them to be a good category of tenant who don't default on the rent. With tenants on benefits the number of defaulters outnumbers the ones who pay on time," he said.

"Single mothers on benefits have been displaced to the bottom of the pile; sympathy for this group is disappearing. There aren't enough places for people to live."

Dan Wilson Craw, a spokesman for campaign group Priced Out, says he is dismayed to hear Wilson's announcement: "Evicting tenants because you're suddenly upset about new government policies is unbelievably heartless, and could lead to more people deciding not to claim benefit for fear of losing their home, and sinking further into poverty," he said, "This is just one symptom of a wider housing market that is simply not working in the consumer's interests. The instability and poor conditions that private tenants have to deal with would not be tolerated in any other market."

Wilson's decision comes after figures from the National Landlords' Association published in December, which showed that the number of private landlords letting to people on benefits has halved to just one in five.

Problems for tenants on benefits seem likely to get worse when universal credit is introduced. Under the scheme, six means-tested benefits, including housing benefit, will be combined into one monthly payment. Tenants on benefits will need to budget and pay the rent to their landlord themselves.

Universal credit started to be introduced in April 2013 and it is predicted that all claimants will be moved to the scheme by 2017.

The Wilsons shot to prominence in 2006 when it was revealed that they had built up Britain's biggest buy-to-let empire, sometimes snapping up a property every day in the early part of the decade.

Wilson is not the first large-scale landlord to raise concerns about low-income tenants. Last month Kevin Green, a landlord with more than 700 properties in Wales, said he may stop letting to people on welfare.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants

Don't get sick, don't lose your job, don't have a zero hours contract, don't be on minimum wage, if you do, make sure you have warm clothes so you can live on the street.

landlords can not evict tenants without a court order,200 tenants to evict would cost him a small fortune as well as months to do it! it's just a scare story.

In order to have housing benefit, you have to have a lease.   Normal leases are for a year.   Three months before the end of the lease he can tell you he won't be renewing at, then at the end of that lease, your landlord can simply not renew it and you have to leave, he doesn't need a court order.

This is a totally bollocks story made to make it look like the governments fault.

Tenants of private landlords do not get housing benefit they get a local housing allowance (although most people do not make any distinction between the 2 as they are applied for the same way through the same department )- and that has had the rule about not funding empty bedrooms on it for years and years (at least as far back as 1993)

The people on benefits getting into arrears is nothing to do with the changes in benefits introduced by the government recently - this will be something that has gone on for years and which was frequently a matter of discussion by private landlords on the old sky news board.

So the actual problem is benefit recipients not paying their rent and responsibility lies squarely with them not the government or anyone else.

Sassy wrote:In order to have housing benefit, you have to have a lease.   Normal leases are for a year.   Three months before the end of the lease he can tell you he won't be renewing at, then at the end of that lease, your landlord can simply not renew it and you have to leave, he doesn't need a court order.

No, you don't have to leave.  You become a holdover tenant.  Nicko is quite right, you need legal action to physically remove the tenant...and then a sheriff armed with a writ of eviction to visit the site to physically escort you out.

and unless the sheriff has the police with him you still can't get them out! and when they are out the council has a legal obligation to rehouse them!!

Sassy wrote:In order to have housing benefit, you have to have a lease.   Normal leases are for a year.   Three months before the end of the lease he can tell you he won't be renewing at, then at the end of that lease, your landlord can simply not renew it and you have to leave, he doesn't need a court order.

lol

nicko wrote:and unless the sheriff has the police with him you still can't get them out! and when they are out the council has a legal obligation to rehouse them!!

Well, that's the way the system works. I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the tenants. It's just that it doesn't happen as easily as sass portrays it. In this country, I would speculate it costs on average $2500 in fees and costs to evict a tenant from an average apartment.

Lots of private landlords will stipulate "no dss" when renting their house or room - that's always been the way.

The reason - not because the government is giving less money but because the majority are chavs who trash the house and get drunk all day.

BigAndy9 wrote:Lots of private landlords will stipulate "no dss" when renting their house or room - that's always been the way.

The reason - not because the government is giving less money but because the majority are chavs who trash the house and get drunk all day.

Usual stereotypical Daily Mail shite.

They couldn't afford to get drunk all day when all they get is £70 a week, you Daily Mail readers are as thick as pig shit and are crap at maths.

sphinx wrote:This is a totally bollocks story made to make it look like the governments fault.

Tenants of private landlords do not get housing benefit they get a local housing allowance (although most people do not make any distinction between the 2 as they are applied for the same way through the same department )- and that has had the rule about not funding empty bedrooms on it for years and years (at least as far back as 1993)

The people on benefits getting into arrears is nothing to do with the changes in benefits introduced by the government recently - this will be something that has gone on for years and which was frequently a matter of discussion by private landlords on the old sky news board.

So the actual problem is benefit recipients not paying their rent and responsibility lies squarely with them not the government or anyone else.

That made me fall about laughing. I swear people rant on without reading. NONE OF THE TENANTS ARE IN ARREARS. When there leases end, they will not be renewed, which unfortunately is the landlord's right, and contrary to what Quill says, happens every day. The Landlord does not have to renew the lease. In these cases, the tenants have done nothing wrong, the landlord just doesn't want to renew the leases.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:This is a totally bollocks story made to make it look like the governments fault.

Tenants of private landlords do not get housing benefit they get a local housing allowance (although most people do not make any distinction between the 2 as they are applied for the same way through the same department )- and that has had the rule about not funding empty bedrooms on it for years and years (at least as far back as 1993)

The people on benefits getting into arrears is nothing to do with the changes in benefits introduced by the government recently - this will be something that has gone on for years and which was frequently a matter of discussion by private landlords on the old sky news board.

So the actual problem is benefit recipients not paying their rent and responsibility lies squarely with them not the government or anyone else.

That made me fall about laughing.   I swear people rant on without reading.   NONE OF THE TENANTS ARE IN ARREARS.   When there leases end, they will not be renewed, which unfortunately is the landlord's right, and contrary to what Quill says, happens every day.   The Landlord does not have to renew the lease.   In these cases, the tenants have done nothing wrong, the landlord just doesn't want to renew the leases.  

From your opening post

With tenants on benefits the number of defaulters outnumbers the ones who pay on time," he said.

Again why exactly is this the governments fault? The rules for LHA (housing benefit for private lets) have not changed unlike the rules for housing benefit so and defaults are the fault of the tenants.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

That made me fall about laughing.   I swear people rant on without reading.   NONE OF THE TENANTS ARE IN ARREARS.   When there leases end, they will not be renewed, which unfortunately is the landlord's right, and contrary to what Quill says, happens every day.   The Landlord does not have to renew the lease.   In these cases, the tenants have done nothing wrong, the landlord just doesn't want to renew the leases.  

From your opening post

With tenants on benefits the number of defaulters outnumbers the ones who pay on time," he said.

Again why exactly is this the governments fault?  The rules for LHA (housing benefit for private lets) have not changed unlike the rules for housing benefit so and defaults are the fault of the tenants.

He is not talking about those tenants, he is talking about the figures for tenants AS A WHOLE.

You missed this bit:

"Evicting tenants because you're suddenly upset about new government policies is unbelievably heartless, and could lead to more people deciding not to claim benefit for fear of losing their home, and sinking further into poverty,"

Sassy wrote:
That made me fall about laughing.   I swear people rant on without reading.   NONE OF THE TENANTS ARE IN ARREARS.   When there leases end, they will not be renewed, which unfortunately is the landlord's right, and contrary to what Quill says, happens every day.   The Landlord does not have to renew the lease.   In these cases, the tenants have done nothing wrong, the landlord just doesn't want to renew the leases.  

What happens every day is that people just give up their rights and walk away. If that's what you mean, sass...I agree it's all too frequent. But you can contest an eviction action easily, especially if it's for something other than non-payment of rent. Landlord-Tenant law is a part of Real Property law, and goes back to the grand estates of dukes and earls. You don't toy with those rights.

The defenses of a petition/eviction differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however we are also a much more protective society, and hold up stiff barriers to abuse. The procedure for a landlord is lengthy and expensive, if his petition is opposed.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:
That made me fall about laughing.   I swear people rant on without reading.   NONE OF THE TENANTS ARE IN ARREARS.   When there leases end, they will not be renewed, which unfortunately is the landlord's right, and contrary to what Quill says, happens every day.   The Landlord does not have to renew the lease.   In these cases, the tenants have done nothing wrong, the landlord just doesn't want to renew the leases.  

What happens every day is that people just give up their rights and walk away.  If that's what you mean, sass...I agree it's all too frequent.  But you can contest an eviction action easily, especially if it's for something other than non-payment of rent.  Landlord-Tenant law is a part of Real Property law, and goes back to the grand estates of dukes and earls.  You don't toy with those rights.

The defenses of a petition/eviction differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however we are also a much more protective society, and hold up stiff barriers to abuse.  The procedure for a landlord is lengthy and expensive, if his petition is opposed.

You can't contest an eviction if it is because the lease has ended.   The landlord has the right not to renew the leases.   Leases are normally for one year.   It's up to the landlord if he renews it or not.



Rental residence tenants possess many powerful rights to use and enjoy the properties they're leasing from landlords. For instance, tenants renting residences have the same privacy rights as homeowners and landlords can't enter their dwellings without giving advance notice. Though landlords must scrupulously respect tenants' rights, one thing they don't have to do is automatically renew tenant's leases. In fact, except for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons, landlords of rental properties can refuse to renew tenant leases as it suits them.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/rental-property-owner-right-not-renew-lease-cause-60987.html

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Lots of private landlords will stipulate "no dss" when renting their house or room - that's always been the way.

The reason - not because the government is giving less money but because the majority are chavs who trash the house and get drunk all day.

Usual stereotypical Daily Mail shite.

They couldn't afford to get drunk all day when all they get is £70 a week, you Daily Mail readers are as thick as pig shit and are crap at maths.

Actually they could if they spent the additional rent money on drink instead of paying their rent.

Sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What happens every day is that people just give up their rights and walk away.  If that's what you mean, sass...I agree it's all too frequent.  But you can contest an eviction action easily, especially if it's for something other than non-payment of rent.  Landlord-Tenant law is a part of Real Property law, and goes back to the grand estates of dukes and earls.  You don't toy with those rights.

The defenses of a petition/eviction differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however we are also a much more protective society, and hold up stiff barriers to abuse.  The procedure for a landlord is lengthy and expensive, if his petition is opposed.

You can't contest an eviction if it is because the lease has ended.   The landlord has the right not to renew the leases.   Leases are normally for one year.   It's up to the landlord if he renews it or not.

Nonsense. You can contest any adversarial action. If the landlord chooses not to renew the lease, the status of the transaction goes from contractual to common law, and the tenant becomes a holdover.

Getting the tenant out--enforcement--is an entirely different matter from the nature of the transaction. It requires an adversarial action in law.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:

You can't contest an eviction if it is because the lease has ended.   The landlord has the right not to renew the leases.   Leases are normally for one year.   It's up to the landlord if he renews it or not.

Nonsense.  You can contest any adversarial action.  If the landlord chooses not to renew the lease, the status of the transaction goes from contractual to common law, and the tenant becomes a holdover.  

Getting the tenant out--enforcement--is an entirely different matter from the nature of the transaction.  It requires an adversarial action in law.

Rental residence tenants possess many powerful rights to use and enjoy the properties they're leasing from landlords. For instance, tenants renting residences have the same privacy rights as homeowners and landlords can't enter their dwellings without giving advance notice. Though landlords must scrupulously respect tenants' rights, one thing they don't have to do is automatically renew tenant's leases. In fact, except for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons, landlords of rental properties can refuse to renew tenant leases as it suits them.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/rental-property-owner-right-not-renew-lease-cause-60987.html


If the tenant won't leave the landlord is within his rights to employ a bailiff, he doesn't have to go to court.

Sassy wrote:
Rental residence tenants possess many powerful rights to use and enjoy the properties they're leasing from landlords. For instance, tenants renting residences have the same privacy rights as homeowners and landlords can't enter their dwellings without giving advance notice. Though landlords must scrupulously respect tenants' rights, one thing they don't have to do is automatically renew tenant's leases. In fact, except for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons, landlords of rental properties can refuse to renew tenant leases as it suits them.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/rental-property-owner-right-not-renew-lease-cause-60987.html

That's what I just said, only you are avoiding talking about enforcement.  Over on the liability side, of course the landlord can refuse to contract (lease).  Even here, there defenses available to the tenant, including discrimination and retaliation...which embrace a lot of situations.  But it is the landlord's right to call his/her own position.

However, once you change the nature of the transaction, you still have to evict (enforce).  That's what we originally started discussing.  As Nicko originally said, its expensive and difficult to remove a tenant.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:

That's what I just said, only you are avoiding talking about enforcement.  Over on the liability side, of course the landlord can refuse to contract (lease).  Even here, there defenses available to the tenant, including discrimination and retaliation...which embrace a lot of situations.  But it is the landlord's right to call his/her own position.

However, once you change the nature of the transaction, you still have to evict (enforce).  That's what we originally started discussing.  As Nicko originally said, its expensive and difficult to remove a tenant.

The bit in bold. Wrong. The landlord has absolutely no obligation to renew the lease, he does not have to give any reasons. All he has to do is give you 30 days notice that it is not being renewed.

You missed the bit at the end about the bailiff.  Landlords use bailiffs all the time, especially big landlords, they factor them in to their expenses.

Sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  You can contest any adversarial action.  If the landlord chooses not to renew the lease, the status of the transaction goes from contractual to common law, and the tenant becomes a holdover.  

Getting the tenant out--enforcement--is an entirely different matter from the nature of the transaction.  It requires an adversarial action in law.

Rental residence tenants possess many powerful rights to use and enjoy the properties they're leasing from landlords. For instance, tenants renting residences have the same privacy rights as homeowners and landlords can't enter their dwellings without giving advance notice. Though landlords must scrupulously respect tenants' rights, one thing they don't have to do is automatically renew tenant's leases. In fact, except for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons, landlords of rental properties can refuse to renew tenant leases as it suits them.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/rental-property-owner-right-not-renew-lease-cause-60987.html


If the tenant won't leave the landlord is within his rights to employ a bailiff, he doesn't have to go to court.

Wrong. They do have to go to court.


Eviction at the end of the fixed term

At the end of the fixed term, the landlord doesn’t need a reason to evict you. As long as they’ve given you correct notice, they can apply to the court for a possession order.

If the court gives your landlord a possession order and you still don’t leave, your landlord must apply for a warrant for eviction - this means bailiffs can remove you from the property.

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting-evictions

Sassy wrote:


You missed the bit at the end about the bailiff.  Landlords use bailiffs all the time, especially big landlords, they factor them in to their expenses.

Give me a chance to write, fcs.  

The bailiff is an officer of the court.  As such, he doesn't do anything without the order of the Court.  You are incorrect to assert that you can go directly to the bailiff. There are shortcuts--such as the situation of non-payment of rents--but even there, you can always appeal and you're right back in a lengthy and expensive proceedings.  

Every judicial proceeding is an adversarial proceeding, and it is a violation of due process to not to allow both parties 'notice and opportunity to be heard.'  You are mixing apples with oranges--not to mention unlawful practice of law--when you confuse liability with remedy (enforcement). The landlord does not have to enter into a new lease, but it's a whole different matter getting the tenant out of the premises.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

From your opening post


Again why exactly is this the governments fault?  The rules for LHA (housing benefit for private lets) have not changed unlike the rules for housing benefit so and defaults are the fault of the tenants.

He is not talking about those tenants, he is talking about the figures for tenants AS A WHOLE.

You missed this bit:

"Evicting tenants because you're suddenly upset about new government policies is unbelievably heartless, and could lead to more people deciding not to claim benefit for fear of losing their home, and sinking further into poverty,"

No that is the bit that led to my response - these people are not being evicted because landlords are upset at new government policies they are being evicted because people the government provide with money to pay their rent are choosing to use the money for other things.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

He is not talking about those tenants, he is talking about the figures for tenants AS A WHOLE.

You missed this bit:

"Evicting tenants because you're suddenly upset about new government policies is unbelievably heartless, and could lead to more people deciding not to claim benefit for fear of losing their home, and sinking further into poverty,"

No that is the bit that led to my response - these people are not being evicted because landlords are upset at new government policies they are being evicted because people the government provide with money to pay their rent are choosing to use the money for other things.

Oh Jeez, it's exactly the reason.

"Rents have gone north, and benefit levels south," he said. "The gap is such that I have taken the decision to withdraw from taking tenants on housing benefit

Loki wrote:

Catman wrote:

Usual stereotypical Daily Mail shite.

They couldn't afford to get drunk all day when all they get is £70 a week, you Daily Mail readers are as thick as pig shit and are crap at maths.

Actually they could if they spent the additional rent money on drink instead of paying their rent.

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

Catman wrote:

Loki wrote:

Actually they could if they spent the additional rent money on drink instead of paying their rent.

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

Thanks, very hard to default when the money is being paid direct to the landlord.

Sassy wrote:

Catman wrote:

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

Thanks, very hard to default when the money is being paid direct to the landlord.

Of course we know that the government is trying to change all that with the proposed introduction of UC, but hopefully that will never happen now.

Catman wrote:

Loki wrote:

Actually they could if they spent the additional rent money on drink instead of paying their rent.

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

No phil - social housing tenants can choose to have their housing benefit paid straight to their landlord - I am not sure if private tenants can do the same but there were serious discussions about phasing the choice out when I left private rented 15 odd years ago because one of the reasons then for private landlords refusing to accept benefits tenants was that when rent was paid direct if the tenant over claimed the money was taken back from the landlords account not the tenant. Whether allowed or not it remains a choice of the tenant and any tenant can at any time choose to have their housing benefit or local housing allowance paid to them so they can pay the landlord.

Sassy wrote:

Catman wrote:

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

Thanks, very hard to default when the money is being paid direct to the landlord.

Except it is up to the tenant who the money gets paid to.

Catman wrote:

Loki wrote:

Actually they could if they spent the additional rent money on drink instead of paying their rent.

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

Not so. You have a choice whether the money goes direct to your landlord, or the money goes straight into your bank account for you to pay your landlord directly yourself.

Whilst receiving housing benefit, I took the option to pay my landlord directly myself, that's how I know.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

No phil - social housing tenants can choose to have their housing benefit paid straight to their landlord - I am not sure if private tenants can do the same but there were serious discussions about phasing the choice out when I left private rented 15 odd years ago because one of the reasons then for private landlords refusing to accept benefits tenants was that when rent was paid direct if the tenant over claimed the money was taken back from the landlords account not the tenant.  Whether allowed or not it remains a choice of the tenant and any tenant can at any time choose to have their housing benefit or local housing allowance paid to them so they can pay the landlord.

We were never given that option when we took on this H/A place, money was always paid direct to the landlord and there wasn't any other option.

Whoever it gets paid to, the landlord knows you are getting it, because he has to sign the form saying he is the landlord and confirming the details of the property.

Loki wrote:

Catman wrote:

Usual stereotypical Daily Mail shite.

They couldn't afford to get drunk all day when all they get is £70 a week, you Daily Mail readers are as thick as pig shit and are crap at maths.

Actually they could if they spent the additional rent money on drink instead of paying their rent.

I'm sure you speak for the minority there Loki

Costa wrote:

Catman wrote:

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

Not so. You have a choice whether the money goes direct to your landlord, or the money goes straight into your bank account for you to pay your landlord directly yourself.

Whilst receiving housing benefit, I took the option to pay my landlord directly myself, that's how I know.

The only thing that i can think of is it differs depending on what authority you are under but i really think that the rules were changed a few years back.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

In this country, at the present time, rent is paid direct to the landlord so they wouldn't have the rent money.

No phil - social housing tenants can choose to have their housing benefit paid straight to their landlord - I am not sure if private tenants can do the same but there were serious discussions about phasing the choice out when I left private rented 15 odd years ago because one of the reasons then for private landlords refusing to accept benefits tenants was that when rent was paid direct if the tenant over claimed the money was taken back from the landlords account not the tenant.  Whether allowed or not it remains a choice of the tenant and any tenant can at any time choose to have their housing benefit or local housing allowance paid to them so they can pay the landlord.

Yes, private tenants have the same option.

Sassy wrote:Whoever it gets paid to, the landlord knows you are getting it, because he has to sign the form saying he is the landlord and confirming the details of the property.

No he doesnt - all you need to do is show a tenancy agreement and proof of rent amount.

Joy Division wrote:

Loki wrote:

Actually they could if they spent the additional rent money on drink instead of paying their rent.

I'm sure you speak for the minority there Loki

Yea...More evil RW stereotyping   

Catman wrote:

Costa wrote:

Not so. You have a choice whether the money goes direct to your landlord, or the money goes straight into your bank account for you to pay your landlord directly yourself.

Whilst receiving housing benefit, I took the option to pay my landlord directly myself, that's how I know.

The only thing that i can think of is it differs depending on what authority you are under but i really think that the rules were changed a few years back.

Phil I am talking about just recently.

Costa wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No phil - social housing tenants can choose to have their housing benefit paid straight to their landlord - I am not sure if private tenants can do the same but there were serious discussions about phasing the choice out when I left private rented 15 odd years ago because one of the reasons then for private landlords refusing to accept benefits tenants was that when rent was paid direct if the tenant over claimed the money was taken back from the landlords account not the tenant.  Whether allowed or not it remains a choice of the tenant and any tenant can at any time choose to have their housing benefit or local housing allowance paid to them so they can pay the landlord.

Yes, private tenants have the same option.

Not in this borough they don't.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:Whoever it gets paid to, the landlord knows you are getting it, because he has to sign the form saying he is the landlord and confirming the details of the property.

No he doesnt - all you need to do is show a tenancy agreement and proof of rent amount.

That is correct.

I'm FAIRLY sure that up here people get the HB paid  into their bank account, as before folk on the DSS were at a disadvantage when private rents often said....sorry, no DSS....so now money is normally laid into the bank accounts of the HB claimant, so the landlord need not know they are DSS.

But perhaps it's changed under this government?

Catman wrote:

Costa wrote:

Not so. You have a choice whether the money goes direct to your landlord, or the money goes straight into your bank account for you to pay your landlord directly yourself.

Whilst receiving housing benefit, I took the option to pay my landlord directly myself, that's how I know.

The only thing that i can think of is it differs depending on what authority you are under but i really think that the rules were changed a few years back.

Nope its just a little tick box easily overlooked for those who have always had it paid to the Landlord. In fact advisers who fill forms out for you have been known to deliberately skip over it because councils would rather landlords were paid direct. It reduces the chance of completely benefit dependent people getting into arrears and having to be rehoused and if overpayments are made if a claimant gets back into work or gets money some other way then there is far more likely to be money in the landlords account which can be seized automatically so the council are not left with money owing them .

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:Whoever it gets paid to, the landlord knows you are getting it, because he has to sign the form saying he is the landlord and confirming the details of the property.

No he doesnt - all you need to do is show a tenancy agreement and proof of rent amount.

Rubbish. Got housing benefit myself a couple of years ago, the payment could not go through until the landlord had signed the form, even though the money was being paid to me.

Joy Division wrote:I'm FAIRLY sure that up here people get the HB paid  into their bank account, as before folk on the DSS were at a disadvantage when private rents often said....sorry, no DSS.

But perhaps it's changed under this government?

Again not so, I had my housing benefit paid into my bank account, and I am a private tenant.

Joy Division wrote:I'm FAIRLY sure that up here people get the HB paid  into their bank account, as before folk on the DSS were at a disadvantage when private rents often said....sorry, no DSS.

But perhaps it's changed under this government?

No it hasnt - if you go to a council and they fill the forms out for you they may deliberately skip over that bit so people dont know it exists

Joy Division wrote:I'm FAIRLY sure that up here people get the HB paid  into their bank account, as before folk on the DSS were at a disadvantage when private rents often said....sorry, no DSS.

But perhaps it's changed under this government?

Maybe something has been changed recently on the quiet.

Costa wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I'm FAIRLY sure that up here people get the HB paid  into their bank account, as before folk on the DSS were at a disadvantage when private rents often said....sorry, no DSS.

But perhaps it's changed under this government?

Again not so, I had my housing benefit paid into my bank account, and I am a private tenant.

What is not so Costa?

Catman wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I'm FAIRLY sure that up here people get the HB paid  into their bank account, as before folk on the DSS were at a disadvantage when private rents often said....sorry, no DSS.

But perhaps it's changed under this government?

Maybe something has been changed recently on the quiet.

It could even be a regional thing varying from council to council Phil?l just like you said.

Joy Division wrote:

Costa wrote:

Again not so, I had my housing benefit paid into my bank account, and I am a private tenant.

What is not so Costa?

I mean it's not changed.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No he doesnt - all you need to do is show a tenancy agreement and proof of rent amount.

Rubbish.   Got housing benefit myself a couple of years ago, the payment could not go through until the landlord had signed the form, even though the money was being paid to me.

Did your tenancy agreement have an up to date rent amount? Most people who renew their tenancy each year or who are on rolling monthly contracts do not have a tenancy agreement showing the up to date rent - it shows the original rent with a statement that said rent can be changed at whatever interval under whatever circumstances. In that case the council ask for evidence of rent and the easiest way to provide it is to get the landlord to sign a form. If you get a new tenancy with up to date rent each year that is all you need to claim.