Jobs & Education2 mins ago
Housing Benefit
38 Answers
I was just talking to my friend about housing benefit. Both he and I rely on it. We are exceptionally reliable tenants, look after our flats and always pay rent in advance. He has mental health problems and I have physical problems. We were bemoaning the fact that pretty much every house ever available for rent states "no housing benefit". We believe this is discriminatory. People rely on housing benefit for various reasons and different times in their lives, some for longer than others. All these people are just normal people. We live in a country where our government is set up so that we look after each other if we fall on hard times- we pay taxes when we work, and we receive help via benefits if we can't work. Under this, we are all the same people. You get utter *** who will trash a property and not pay their rent, who are in full time work. Isn't it about time that the government made it illegal for people to state "no housing benefit" on their properties, particularly for disabled people? No business would be allowed to say "No wheelchairs" or "No schizophrenics" - on the contrary, they would be penalised if they didn't go out of their way to help people who needed more help. We currently have nowhere to move to because of the "no housing benefit" blanket. What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Scarlett. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I completely agree with you as does my dad, and we do not discriminate against HB applicants, people with pets, children or smokers. We believe that your home should be your home and as long as no-one is trashing it, and they pay their rent on time, their financial scenario is none of our business. We never have empty houses and most people come via personal recommendation of other tenants usually on benefits, with kids with dogs smoking and being normal people.
Actually, Kathyan, part of the reason that HB was switched from being paid directly to landlords was precisely to try to avoid discrimination against tenants on benefits.
Prior to the changeover there was widespread discrimination taking place, with tenants unable to hide the fact that they were on benefits (because their rent payments were being made directly from public funds). The idea behind paying the money to tenants, rather than landlords, was that the landlords would then have no way of knowing where the source of the money was.
Prior to the changeover there was widespread discrimination taking place, with tenants unable to hide the fact that they were on benefits (because their rent payments were being made directly from public funds). The idea behind paying the money to tenants, rather than landlords, was that the landlords would then have no way of knowing where the source of the money was.
i think the move to pay the hb to the tenant rather than the landlord is a retrograde one. people on hb dont have much money (hence why they need HB) and it must be a temptation to use Hb for short term needs rather than longer term needs especially when its so difficult to evict on-paying tenants.
If HB was paid direct to the lad lord, HB receivers would be seen as a surer bet than private renters
If HB was paid direct to the lad lord, HB receivers would be seen as a surer bet than private renters
>>> But at least if it's paid directly to the landlord they know the rent is there every month
That's not going to help though if the landlord assumes that there's a high probability that the tenant will trash the property.
Rightly or wrongly, many landlords assume that tenants on benefits are far, far more likely to wreck the place than those who aren't. (I've seen forums, on sites LandordZone, where landlords have suggested that perhaps only 1 in 20 of 'non-benefit' tenants are likely to cause problems but well over a half of 'benefit' tenants are expected to do so).
That's not going to help though if the landlord assumes that there's a high probability that the tenant will trash the property.
Rightly or wrongly, many landlords assume that tenants on benefits are far, far more likely to wreck the place than those who aren't. (I've seen forums, on sites LandordZone, where landlords have suggested that perhaps only 1 in 20 of 'non-benefit' tenants are likely to cause problems but well over a half of 'benefit' tenants are expected to do so).
Usually the only reason rent is not paid to the landlord is because the DWP stops the benefits for some spurious reason, like not filling in a form which was never sent, or the DWP losing a form which was sent, or the claimant not attending a meeting they knew nothing about; do you know that if you can't attend a meeting, rather than phoning and saying "Where are you, are you okay? You should be here!" like a boss might, they press a button which STOPS the claimant's ESA/incapacity and housing benefit and council tax benefit, leaving them with nothing. This has happened to me several times- each time I could not walk that day and couldn't even get down the stairs to get in a taxi to come to my meeting. I phoned them (of course) to explain and the system took no notice of this, and cancelled my benefits. This is why people with serious health problems end up in dire situations- not because they use their housing benefit to buy other things, but because their benefits are stopped SO easily by the DWP. And this is why landlords end up without their money, blaming the tenant. I do believe that the vast majority of people would use their housing benefit to pay their rent.
Buenchico- how about disabled people though, those on ESA through no fault of their own? People who have had full time jobs but now can't work. Why should they be penalised and treated like they are potential criminals? Whereas in most other areas of life there are a lot of legislations in place to avoid discrimination against disabled people.
// .. the reason that HB was switched from being paid directly to landlords was to avoid discrimination against tenants on benefits. //
writer clearly mistaken or gullible
The transfer to LHA - which was also ostensibly to teach indigent spendthrift dossy tenant budgeting skills - is associated with a 50% rate of eviction for arrears
Landlords will keep you on if you pay your rent - for obvious economic reasons ( no rent in void period and redecoration costs)
writer clearly mistaken or gullible
The transfer to LHA - which was also ostensibly to teach indigent spendthrift dossy tenant budgeting skills - is associated with a 50% rate of eviction for arrears
Landlords will keep you on if you pay your rent - for obvious economic reasons ( no rent in void period and redecoration costs)
As my first link above shows, Scarlett, disability discrimination laws can already be used against landlords and agents. (The content of the link refers to sex discrimination but it follows that a court would be likely to come to the same decision in a case based upon discrimination where a prospective tenant was on benefits due to a disability).
and you can try a schizophrenic - but this may happen !
https:/
https:/
erm where are we ?
body and soul - ooo-ooo---ooo * soft cuddly noises
and not Law
Clearly the claimamt would say the parallel with sex discrimination was 'four square' and the Landlord defendant would say no it is quite different .... because
you can show an on-cost to disability which is NOT present in sex discrimination which means you are taking an economic decision and not a disability one
also there is no disability tsar who will bring the case on your behalf - yup the disabled dosser had to do it himself - and pay
body and soul - ooo-ooo---ooo * soft cuddly noises
and not Law
Clearly the claimamt would say the parallel with sex discrimination was 'four square' and the Landlord defendant would say no it is quite different .... because
you can show an on-cost to disability which is NOT present in sex discrimination which means you are taking an economic decision and not a disability one
also there is no disability tsar who will bring the case on your behalf - yup the disabled dosser had to do it himself - and pay
// Isn't it about time that the government made it illegal for people to state "no housing benefit" on their properties, particularly for disabled people? //
looks like law to me
but I could be wrong
I know nothing about morals - hur hur hur
suffice it to say - I am a landlord - I do have disabled tenants - and the mad one see above - some tenants have trashed the house - one was a tenant for 20 y and I have some idea of the law in this area
looks like law to me
but I could be wrong
I know nothing about morals - hur hur hur
suffice it to say - I am a landlord - I do have disabled tenants - and the mad one see above - some tenants have trashed the house - one was a tenant for 20 y and I have some idea of the law in this area
As a landlord you can get paid directly by the council. Two of my tenants have done this. One a single parent who frankly said she could not guarantee she would not be tempted to spend the housing benefit, the others Syrian refugees whose support workers organised their rent paid directly to me. Either the Tenant or the landlord fills in a form online and if both are in agreement then the housing benefit is paid directly into the Landlords account via direct credit.
The only problems I've ever had re trashing and non payment of rent was tenants working not in receipt of housing benefit.
I draw the line at pets and smoking. Pets damage the house and garden ( used to say cats were ok until it cost me over £1000 to replace carpets peed on by cat and wallpaper used as a scratching post) Smoking makes the property stink and stains the paintwork. If they want to smoke they can go outside like my OH used to have to do in our house before he stopped smoking.
The only problems I've ever had re trashing and non payment of rent was tenants working not in receipt of housing benefit.
I draw the line at pets and smoking. Pets damage the house and garden ( used to say cats were ok until it cost me over £1000 to replace carpets peed on by cat and wallpaper used as a scratching post) Smoking makes the property stink and stains the paintwork. If they want to smoke they can go outside like my OH used to have to do in our house before he stopped smoking.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News11 mins ago
