90% of Landlords Considering Not Taking on Tenants on Benefits

Landlords 'may turn away people on benefits when universal credit comes in'
Private landlords warn that many are considering rejecting tenants on benefits amid fears of increasing rent defaults

Buy-to-let landlords may start turning away people on housing benefit, amid confusion over whether the benefit will be paid to tenants rather than directly to landlords as the new universal credit system is implemented.

Kevin Green, one of the country's biggest private landlords, who rents out more than 700 houses, predominantly in Wales, described the universal credit benefit system as "a time bomb" for the private rented sector.

He said that while he hoped to stick with benefit tenants he believed he was in a small minority: "Most other landlords are changing now. At least 90% of landlords are considering it. I know a lot of landlords all across the UK and most are saying they're not going to support housing benefit. It's a major problem for government."

Private landlords currently accommodate just over 1 million people who have part or all of their rent paid by the state. "My worry is for the customers. People are going to be homeless as a result of it. There's absolutely no doubt about it," Green added.

Fears that housing benefit will, by default, go to tenants under universal credit, bringing an increase in rent defaults, is prompting many landlords to consider following Fergus and Judith Wilson, who own almost 1,000 properties in Kent and announced a week ago they would no longer take tenants on benefits.

Marion Money, who rents out more than a dozen flats and houses in north Kent, said around three-quarters of private landlords were considering turning away would-be renters on benefits.

She said: "Landlords are running scared. They are saying: 'If I've got a choice I'll choose somebody who's working. The government isn't giving the right message about universal credit. They seem to be in a complete mix-up. The fact it has been delayed is compounding the problem."

Currently around a quarter of private tenants on housing benefits have the money paid directly to their landlords. In some cases this is because they are viewed as vulnerable, and it happens automatically if a tenant misses two rent payments.

Universal credit will see money paid monthly rather than weekly, with an emphasis on recipients learning to budget properly. The paradox is that after trials in which some social tenants received rent money themselves for the first time, bringing a rise in defaults, the protections for private landlords are now arguably stronger. The latest Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) plans would keep the system under which rent goes directly to a landlord after two missed payments, while adding a review after a first month's default.

But some warn that the initial message about recipients managing their own money has stuck, while the DWP has yet to confirm whether tenants who currently have rent paid straight to landlords will automatically keep this under universal credit.

Kate Webb from Shelter argues that an already difficult climate for tenants on benefits has been made worse by the DWP: "The rules will be broadly the same, and the arrears trigger will actually be stronger, but landlords are very worried. The DWP has bungled the communications. They need to be doing much more to reassure landlords about the rules. Landlords' associations need to be doing more to remind their members about this."

The DWP rejects this criticism. A spokesman said: "We do work very closely with landlords' groups, both directly and through local authorities, and that work continues."

What seems certain is that publicity about universal credit, and the Wilsons' decision, is making it even harder for tenants on benefits to find a home.

Benjamin Matthews, a letting agent in south-east London, said he was called this week by a client in Singapore: "He has quite a portfolio and the majority are rented out to people who are on benefits. He wanted to know: 'Has something happened? Has there been a big change?'"

A poll of National Landlords' Association (NLA) members has found that while three years ago almost half were aiming properties at tenants on benefits this had now dropped to 22%.

Chris Norris, the NLA's head of policy, said universal credit was a major issue: "The difficulty is the government has been very cagey in releasing information and timelines, and so many deadlines have been missed. They have been a little bit secretive and landlords have jumped to conclusions, or filled in the gaps themselves."

Housing charities and landlords' associations, while stressing that the extent of the chaos may yet not be quite so significant, have called on ministers to reassure landlords about the planned changes under universal credit, particularly those connected to housing benefit being paid to tenants rather than directly to property owners.

Even landlords with a significant commitment to housing benefit are considering their options. Almost three-quarters of Green's homes are leased to such people, some with the help of charities working with young homeless people or victims of domestic violence.

Green says he is something of "an oddball" among landlords for such efforts, but says this might have to end: "It could be before the end of this year that we follow the Wilsons and say, OK, we're not taking people on benefits any longer. It has to be an option for us. It's a commercial business. A lot of properties still have mortgages on them and they need to be paid."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/10/landlords-benefits-universal-credit-tenants

This will affect thousands of people at a time of a housing shortage. FGS!!!

And why would you - have you not seen Benefits Street?

Neither am I after the last filthy pig of a tenant left my house in tatters.

She was on benefits. She tried to do a moon light flit after falling behind with the rent even though she had the money from the council!!

She was a slovenly lazy pig who left the house filthy. It cost me £4,000 to do the place up as she had ruined the bathroom. For some reason despite an aversion to cleaning she decided she didn't like the colour of the suite so painted the bath, sink and toilet white!!!!!!!!!!!! She then decided the tiles should also be white. I only found out when she left. It had to be taken back to plaster.

To add insult to injury when she moved in she had not paid a deposit saying the previous landlord hadn't returned it yet. I let it slide thinking I was doing a kindness.

My kindness was rewarded with deceit and damage

Just ask if you would like more details I've no doubt she is another iconic figure for you Sassy.

I am selling my buy to let a 3 bedroom Detached house in Chester if anyone is interested it is refurbished throughout and I don't want another tenant please God.

BigAndy9 wrote:And why would you - have you not seen Benefits Street?

Truly Andy Sassy hasn't a clue!!! See my story above she champions these people. It's a funny old world when the lefties champion deceitful slovenly bone idle vandals isn't it.

Still talking the same old shit then Drinky?

Clarkson wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:And why would you - have you not seen Benefits Street?

Truly Andy Sassy hasn't a clue!!! See my story above she champions these people. It's a funny old world when the lefties champion deceitful slovenly bone idle vandals isn't it.

Isn't it strange, Drinky that you rented out a second home that you owned to benefit claimants taking the money out of a system you so despised.

I suppose the cash you got helped to supplement that gold plated public sector pension that you withdraw without batting an eyelid but you would deny to others.

Seriously Drinky.

Sorry but this is scaremongering by Sassy trying to prove how horrible the government is.

The fact is when Universal Credit comes in every single person who now gets child tax credit or working tax credit will get universal credit instead so people earning £35,000 a year with 3 or more children will *dum dum dummmmmm* be  benefits claimants  

Now I will leave the calculation of the number of working tenants that this will include to those reading - suffice to say its a huge percentage of the market.

What sassy is trying to prevent people working out is that UC will prevent landlords rejecting tenants on the basis that they are getting benefits because unlike at the moment there will be no distinction between those working and those unemployed - they will all get the same benefit in the same way.  This means that landlords (if they dont want to cut themselves off from the vast pool of hard working regular paying tenants) will have to assess people on the simple matter of whether they pay their rent or not.

It's by a landlord, in contact with other landlords, probably in a landlord association.

Sassy wrote:It's by a landlord, in contact with other landlords, probably in a landlord association.

Yes who because of the likes of you have not thought the thing through.

As always what the landlords mean is if we think that a certain prospective tenant is going to fail to pay the rent we are not going to have them. At the moment it is easy for landlords to say "anyone getting housing benefit" (by which they mean local housing allowance) but that distinction is being removed. All that is going to happen is people who fail to pay their rent in one place are going to struggle to be accepted in another.
Hands up who here can see landlords evicting the tenant who earns £35000 a year and always pays his rent on the dot because he is a benefit claimant

Irn Bru wrote:

Clarkson wrote:

Truly Andy Sassy hasn't a clue!!! See my story above she champions these people. It's a funny old world when the lefties champion deceitful slovenly bone idle vandals isn't it.

Isn't it strange, Drinky that you rented out a second home that you owned to benefit claimants taking the money out of a system you so despised.

I suppose the cash you got helped to supplement that gold plated public sector pension that you withdraw without batting an eyelid but you would deny to others.

Seriously Drinky.

Er two things.

The tenant was referred to me by an outgoing tenant who had ben exemplary. I didn't know she was on benefits until I said she could have the property

Secondly as part of my plans to retire I had invested money in various things one being a Buy to Let.

It's what we responsible hard working savers do. I realise it is alien to you Irn Bru but I've always saved well at least after 25.

Finally for the record I'm not drawing my pension yet I live of my resources like this property. Nice try ni=o cigar comrade.

Sassy scaremongering now that's a surprise!!!!

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:It's by a landlord, in contact with other landlords, probably in a landlord association.

Yes who because of the likes of you have not thought the thing through.

As always what the landlords mean is if we think that a certain prospective tenant is going to fail to pay the rent we are not going to have them.  At the moment it is easy for landlords to say "anyone getting housing benefit" (by which they mean local housing allowance) but that distinction is being removed.  All that is going to happen is people who fail to pay their rent in one place are going to struggle to be accepted in another.
Hands up who here can see landlords evicting the tenant who earns £35000 a year and always pays his rent on the dot because he is a benefit claimant

What? Do you really think landlords take decisions like that because of what other people say. They weigh up the pros and cons for their businesses. What a load of twaddle.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:It's by a landlord, in contact with other landlords, probably in a landlord association.

Yes who because of the likes of you have not thought the thing through.

As always what the landlords mean is if we think that a certain prospective tenant is going to fail to pay the rent we are not going to have them.  At the moment it is easy for landlords to say "anyone getting housing benefit" (by which they mean local housing allowance) but that distinction is being removed.  All that is going to happen is people who fail to pay their rent in one place are going to struggle to be accepted in another.
Hands up who here can see landlords evicting the tenant who earns £35000 a year and always pays his rent on the dot because he is a benefit claimant

The tenant who earns £35K per annum and always pays his rent on the dot and is also on benefits will probably just be getting familly allowance or he must have a barrow load of kids.

Clarkson wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Isn't it strange, Drinky that you rented out a second home that you owned to benefit claimants taking the money out of a system you so despised.

I suppose the cash you got helped to supplement that gold plated public sector pension that you withdraw without batting an eyelid but you would deny to others.

Seriously Drinky.

Er two things.

The tenant was referred to me by an outgoing tenant who had ben exemplary. I didn't know she was on benefits until I said she could have the property

Secondly as part of my plans to retire I had invested money in various things one being a Buy to Let.

It's what we responsible hard working savers do. I realise it is alien to you Irn Bru but I've always saved well at least after 25.

Finally for the record I'm not drawing my pension yet I live of my resources like this property. Nice try ni=o cigar comrade.

Oh yes, being an acquisitions officer in public sector meant you could save a fortune lol   

And before you ask, you put it on a previous web site.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes who because of the likes of you have not thought the thing through.

As always what the landlords mean is if we think that a certain prospective tenant is going to fail to pay the rent we are not going to have them.  At the moment it is easy for landlords to say "anyone getting housing benefit" (by which they mean local housing allowance) but that distinction is being removed.  All that is going to happen is people who fail to pay their rent in one place are going to struggle to be accepted in another.
Hands up who here can see landlords evicting the tenant who earns £35000 a year and always pays his rent on the dot because he is a benefit claimant

The tenant who earns £35K per annum and always pays his rent on the dot and is also on benefits will probably just be getting familly allowance or he must have a barrow load of kids.

Read the thread

Sassy has said Landlords are going to refuse to rent to people in receipt of Universal Credit. Universal Credit is made up of other benefits including tax credits. The man on £35k has 3 children with no childcare costs and gets child tax credits. At the moment the landlord can distinguish between the man on £35k and the unemployed man because they get different benefits so it is easy for the Landlord to say "no housing benefit". When it is switched over the UC the landlord will be unable to distinguish because they will both be getting the same benefit.

How terrible to make it more difficult to distinguish between the unemployed and the workers.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

The tenant who earns £35K per annum and always pays his rent on the dot and is also on benefits will probably just be getting familly allowance or he must have a barrow load of kids.

Read the thread

Sassy has said Landlords are going to refuse to rent to people in receipt of Universal Credit.  Universal Credit is made up of other benefits including tax credits.  The man on £35k has 3 children with no childcare costs and gets child tax credits.  At the moment the landlord can distinguish between the man on £35k and the unemployed man because they get different benefits so it is easy for the Landlord to say "no housing benefit".  When it is switched over the UC the landlord will be unable to distinguish because they will both be getting the same benefit.

How terrible to make it more difficult to distinguish between the unemployed and the workers.

Read the thread, it wasn't me that said it, it was a landlord.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

The tenant who earns £35K per annum and always pays his rent on the dot and is also on benefits will probably just be getting familly allowance or he must have a barrow load of kids.

Read the thread

Sassy has said Landlords are going to refuse to rent to people in receipt of Universal Credit.  Universal Credit is made up of other benefits including tax credits.  The man on £35k has 3 children with no childcare costs and gets child tax credits.  At the moment the landlord can distinguish between the man on £35k and the unemployed man because they get different benefits so it is easy for the Landlord to say "no housing benefit".  When it is switched over the UC the landlord will be unable to distinguish because they will both be getting the same benefit.

How terrible to make it more difficult to distinguish between the unemployed and the workers.

As far as I know most landlords ask for references before renting out their property to anyone and payment of housing benefit will still be paid and administered by the local council from funds supplied by central government.
Landlords will still ask tenants to sign a tenancy agreement and stipulate that they pay a deposit and if they don't want benefit claimants then they will surely ask the tenant to sign up that the rent is not coming from the government. They're not daft Sphinx.

Clarkson wrote:Sassy scaremongering now that's a surprise!!!!

And you're talking about fifth columnists, Reds under the bed and Communists all over the place!!!

Scaremongering

  

Not hard to work out is it. The first house I rented after I split with my ex has a clause in it saying no housing benefit.

some folks just dont see how the world works

a tennancy is a contract is it not
It is not illegal to ask if someone is working or not...is it
It is not illegal to put conditions in a contract ...is it..

so all it takes is a line which says

I affirm I am in employment....signed..........

simple innit...all above board and done with.....

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Read the thread

Sassy has said Landlords are going to refuse to rent to people in receipt of Universal Credit.  Universal Credit is made up of other benefits including tax credits.  The man on £35k has 3 children with no childcare costs and gets child tax credits.  At the moment the landlord can distinguish between the man on £35k and the unemployed man because they get different benefits so it is easy for the Landlord to say "no housing benefit".  When it is switched over the UC the landlord will be unable to distinguish because they will both be getting the same benefit.

How terrible to make it more difficult to distinguish between the unemployed and the workers.

As far as I know most landlords ask for references before renting out their property to anyone and payment of housing benefit will still be paid and administered by the local council from funds supplied by central government.
Landlords will still ask tenants to sign a tenancy agreement and stipulate that they pay a deposit and if they don't want benefit claimants then they will surely ask the tenant to sign up that the rent is not coming from the government. They're not daft Sphinx.

But that is my point - they cannot do that with Universal credit. Not unless they want to cut themselves out of the market for people working with children. There will be no paper difference between the man on a zero hours contract getting universal credit on the weeks he has no work and the man bringing in £35k - both will show as employed and both as in receipt of universal credit. All the landlord will be able to do is ask for proof of income - and as we all know a zero hours contract means income can drop if work dries up.

This is why I cannot understand why people who claim to care about the poor are objecting to universal credit - it makes blatant prejudice such as landlords have shown for years much much more difficult.

grumpy old git wrote:some folks just dont see how the world works

a tennancy is a contract is it not
It is not illegal to ask if someone is working or not...is it
It is not illegal to put conditions in a contract ...is it..

so all it takes is a line which says

I affirm I am in employment....signed..........

simple innit...all above board and done with.....

And anyone who is registered with an employment agency on a zero hours contract can legally and honestly sign that they are in employment.

Sassy wrote:

Clarkson wrote:

Er two things.

The tenant was referred to me by an outgoing tenant who had ben exemplary. I didn't know she was on benefits until I said she could have the property

Secondly as part of my plans to retire I had invested money in various things one being a Buy to Let.

It's what we responsible hard working savers do. I realise it is alien to you Irn Bru but I've always saved well at least after 25.

Finally for the record I'm not drawing my pension yet I live of my resources like this property. Nice try ni=o cigar comrade.

Oh yes, being an acquisitions officer in public sector meant you could save a fortune lol   

And before you ask, you put it on a previous web site.

And could you read properly you would note that I left public service in my early forties and before I entered it I was in the private sector. I did roughly half and half.

As a private sector employee I paid high rate tax and for a lot of my public sector employment likewise. I paid extra into my pensions and saved liked a gooden.

It is why I retired early.

Any more questions comrades. I have nothing to be ashamed about though I appreciate to you having saved money is completely alien to you. It is why you love spending other peoples so much I presume.

And yet you don't want other people to work in the public sector. I'm all right Jack, pull up the bloody dinghy.

Sassy wrote:And yet you don't want other people to work in the public sector.   I'm all right Jack, pull up the bloody dinghy.

Do you understand the meaning of the word unnecessary?

Back on topic if you spend a lot of money on a property £175,000 in my case you want a reasonable return.

The govt takes 20% tax of any rent though it allows for mortgage interest if you have one. I haven't so can't get that.

There are various other administrative charges and costs e.g annual safety checks Insurance etc etc.

The returns are poor quite frankly and I consider it the least good investment I have made. bar one.

Add the factor of non paying tenants and the time it can take to get them out I'm absolutely not surprised they are refusing to house benefits recipients.

A mate of mine who is a painter Decorator come handy man has bought three BTLs and had weeks of none payment from a tenant who played the system to the full. MY mate has these in lieu of an occupational pension and is not some evil landlord.

You lot think its OK for us to get ripped off fortunately we are free to choose who can let our properties to.

No doubt if Labour gets in that freedom will also be taken away.

Sassy wrote:And yet you don't want other people to work in the public sector.   I'm all right Jack, pull up the bloody dinghy.

You stupid stupid woman I don't want paper pushers who just cost and make life difficult for others NO.

I want a public service that adds value and does those things that are really needed.

As an example of the kind of stuff the left have invested in I quoted the tens of thousands of bean counters appointed in the early 2000s they massively outnumbered the extra Doctors and Nurses.

You blindly and stupidly defend all because you are simply too dense to understand the concept of debt, deficit, value for money and genuine PUBLIC Service. You also stupidly defend the destruction of the tax base in this country and that of France by driving up taxes beyond that which people in general think fair. I mean the ones that work not the spongers you champion.

sphinx wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:some folks just dont see how the world works

a tennancy is a contract is it not
It is not illegal to ask if someone is working or not...is it
It is not illegal to put conditions in a contract ...is it..

so all it takes is a line which says

I affirm I am in employment....signed..........

simple innit...all above board and done with.....

And anyone who is registered with an employment agency on  a zero hours contract can legally and honestly sign that they are in employment.

and thats how many????

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

As far as I know most landlords ask for references before renting out their property to anyone and payment of housing benefit will still be paid and administered by the local council from funds supplied by central government.
Landlords will still ask tenants to sign a tenancy agreement and stipulate that they pay a deposit and if they don't want benefit claimants then they will surely ask the tenant to sign up that the rent is not coming from the government. They're not daft Sphinx.

But that is my point - they cannot do that with Universal credit.  Not unless they want to cut themselves out of the market for people working with children.  There will be no paper difference between the man on a zero hours contract getting universal credit on the weeks he has no work and the man bringing in £35k - both will show as employed and both as in receipt of universal credit.  All the landlord will be able to do is ask for proof of income - and as we all know a zero hours contract means income can drop if work dries up.

This is why I cannot understand why people who claim to care about the poor are objecting to universal credit - it makes blatant prejudice such as landlords have shown for years much much more difficult.

Oh gawd. I'm away up the road for a couple of pints at the club.

grumpy old git wrote:

sphinx wrote:

And anyone who is registered with an employment agency on  a zero hours contract can legally and honestly sign that they are in employment.

and thats how many????

Well I would imagine pretty well everyone without a regular job when they go on universal credit.

Current system you register with an employment agency and get 2 days work in a week you have have to end your JSA claim then make a new one the following week if you dont have work then - that will take 4 to 6 weeks to process during which time you have another week with 2 days work and then another without so you have had to close down the first new claim that still had not been processed and open a 3rd - and so it carries on. During that time you also have to keep housing benefit updated as it is highly probable that you will keep most if not all of your housing benefit (or LHA) for the weeks you worked 16 hours but that will take 6 to 8 weeks for each period you worked to be worked out - in the meantime nothing will be paid for the weeks you did not work and have fresh JSA claims in for because you have to show you are getting it. Seeing as just about nobody can live like that very few JSA claimants go agency unless they are guaranteed enough hours to live on.

UC system - you claim UC, you register with the agency, you declare your hours each week (by typing them into an online PC if your want), the first £56 is ignored and does not affect how much you get after the first £56 the benefit is reduced 70p for every pound earned and the correctly adjusted amount is paid on the correct day once a month. No having to open and close claims. No waiting weeks for adjustments due to earnings to be calculated - a guaranteed minimum no matter what with any bit of work done meaning more money - even if it is just a days work.

Horrible idea isnt it?

not at all...but not everyone is with an agency, not everyone is well enough to work.....

wait...i can see it coming.........  

grumpy old git wrote:not at all...but not everyone is with an agency, not everyone is well enough to work.....

wait...i can see it coming.........  

Those with health problems get extra money and are not obliged to look for work and for some like me with variable conditions that mean sometimes they can and sometimes they cant or conditions that would allow them work park time a few hours a week it means the chance to work when we are able and rest when we arent - something the present system does not allow at all.

As for people who are fully fit and well and able to work why the hell would they choose not to register with an agency or lots of agencies if every bit of work they did made them better off?

They will still have job seeking contracts specifying they must be actively seeking work like they do now buy the contracts are supposed to be far more flexible - especially for single parents who will be able to take work in term time and stay at home during holidays.

The current system is based around an employment market that no longer exists where the majority of jobs were permanent or of significant length with guaranteed hours and single parents unusual. It does not allow for a few days work here a couple there and who knows what or when. It does not allow for people free to work some of the time but unable to at others. Universal Credit is designed to reflect a labour market that is highly flexible by making sure people can take any work that comes their way without having to worry what will happen the following week

I accept that its not perfect and there have been massive problems with its implementation but seriously people should be getting behind it not objecting to it. The only reason I can see for objecting to it is a desire to keep the poor benefit claimers helpless in their place.