Tenant has fiddle job, but council to chase landlords.

[Janus 28]

Is this also happening with Sheffield council, and does it sound legitimate?

 

A friend of mine has some properties in the Rotherham area and lets them out mainly to housing benefit claimants. Not all of the tenants pay the rent as agreed, i.e. they blow some of the rent money. He approached the council (with the tenant in agreement) with a request to have the rent paid direct to himself not to the tenant. The council agreed to do this providing the landlord (my friend) signed a form agreeing to several criteria.

 

The criteria stated that if the tenant was found to be working (on the side) or getting some other income without declaring it, then the landlord would become responsible for this in every aspect. The council explained that “every aspect” also meant that they would expect the landlord to repay the housing benefit back to the council as opposed to the council recovering it from the tenant.

 

A landlord (or anyone else) may have no idea that a tenant is obtaining income from another source, but the local authority is making the person(s) other than the tenant responsible for it.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Janus

[Leah-Lacie 10]

If it is direct to the landlord, I guess they see it as since the tenant has never been in possession of the money, they can't recover it from them, although they should of course!

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[muckymurphy 10]

Is this also happening with Sheffield counsel, and does it sound legitimate?

 

A friend of mine has some properties in the Rotherham area and lets them out mainly to housing benefit claimants. Not all of the tenants pay the rent as agreed, i.e. they blow some of the rent money. He approached the counsel (with the tenant in agreement) with a request to have the rent paid direct to himself not to the tenant. The counsel agreed to do this providing the landlord (my friend) signed a form agreeing to several criteria.

 

The criteria stated that if the tenant was found to be working (on the side) or getting some other income without declaring it, then the landlord would become responsible for this in every aspect. The counsel explained that “every aspect” also meant that they would expect the landlord to repay the housing benefit back to the counsel as opposed to the counsel recovering it from the tenant.

 

A landlord (or anyone else) may have no idea that a tenant is obtaining income from another source, but the local authority is making the person(s) other than the tenant responsible for it.

 

dont get it!? doesnt the rent come from DWP to the tenant to be passed to the landlord? or has the landlord taken on a tenant from the councils waiting list - hence tyheir involvement? please enlighten us.

[Janus 28]

If it is direct to the landlord, I guess they see it as since the tenant has never been in possession of the money, they can't recover it from them, although they should of course!

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

Certainly that is one way to look at it. Another view is that it is the tenant that has claimed the benefit for which ultimately they are not entitled to have claimed. I am honestly not sure what the "right" way is

[Janus 28]

dont get it!? doesnt the rent come from DWP to the tenant to be passed to the landlord? or has the landlord taken on a tenant from the councils waiting list - hence tyheir involvement? please enlighten us.

 

Initially the rent is paid to the tenant(s) as you suggest. If after 2 months on non payment of the rent, a landlord can apply for the rent (housing benefit) to be paid direct to the landlord.

 

Note: Rent (whoever it is paid to, & where ever the tenant has come from) comes from the council not DWP.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Janus

[Leah-Lacie 10]

It is pretty standard procedure though and has been that way for a while. In fact, I actually thought they recovered it from the landlord whoever it got paid to!

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Janus 28]

It is pretty standard procedure though and has been that way for a while. In fact, I actually thought they recovered it from the landlord whoever it got paid to!

 

I can`t comment on how long it has been that way (with Rotherham). The guy only mentioned this to me recently. I do know that RMBC have never asked him before when he has requested direct payments.

 

I think the off-shot of it will result in it becoming even more difficult for "dss" tenants (as they are known) to find accommodation. Maybe the council`s waiting lists will get longer?

Edited September 9, 2012 by Janus
fixed quote tags

[retired 10]

If this is what Rotherham Council are doing when they are prepared to pay direct to the landlord then it is probably not in the landlords interest to have rent paid direct. I have heard that if a landlord does receive the rent direct in Sheffield and the tenant has found to have not been entitled to HB for whatever reason then they can claim the excess HB back off the landlord. The landlord then has to sue the tenant for lost rent which could be a waste of time.

 

However, it can be challenged. The Council would need to prove that the landlord knew he/she was receiving rent which the tenant was not entitled to. But if the landlord has signed an agreement saying that they would pay back the excess then he or she may not have a case.

 

So I can only advise that landlords only accept HB with a guarantor. Not as easy as it sounds as guarantors are a rare species.

[wadsley 10]

This is totally accurate. I used to work in Sheffield as a housing officer for a housing association and this is commonly known as a 'claw back.' In some cases a tenant will have the housing benefit paid to them initially, then they pass it on to the landlord. If the money is paid direct to the landlord, the DSS can claim from the landlord and it comes straight back out of their bank account without any redress. This can be as many as 6,7,8 months of rent leading to £2000+. There is no way the landlord is going to take a tenant with no assets to court over non-payment. the most favourable option is to get them out asap. This is a reason why so many private landlords will not accept DSS payment from tenants. If the tenant doesnt pay, then a lengthy eviction process costing £100's and no rent ensues.

[extaxman 10]

Just report him to the Inland Revenue. They will make his life a misery.

[Janus 28]

Just report him to the Inland Revenue. They will make his life a misery.

 

Report who?

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Report who?

The Tenant, I guess.

And 'Inland Revenue' is now 'HM Revenue and Customs'.