FREE tenancy agreement
FREE landlord software
It's a kind of difficult political & moral dilemma. I like many landlords support the idea of tenants being treated as responsible adults. However, in essence the money being paid to them is not there's (it is the tax payers...yours and mine) So surely we (the State) have the right to say if we are paying it to tenants for their housing costs that they should go directly for that purpose.
Without wishing to sound like a complete fascist. If they had earned the money in the first place, then that in my mind gives them the right to spend it completely as they like but the fact is...... they haven't.
Landlord insurance - specialist brokers
Posts
4 comments:
What will happen then if the tenant becomes 2 months behind with rent payments????
Sadly had this happen a couple of times - take 2 months rent in advance as well as the bond as a security or they have to find somewhere else. It will be interesting if the tenants can sign a letter to DSS or whoever to say monies go straight to the landlord. I know a few ppl have given landlords bad press, but I think there are a lot more bad tenants than landlords.
There's already been problems in the path finder area's, some tenants spending the Councils rent, the Council said it was unfortunate that the tenants had direct debits going out the same day the rent was due. Well Wakey Wakey Govt., that's what's been happening to us LHA landlords for years.
And even that han't got a clue Lord Freud has talked about direct payments to Landlords
I'm araid the vast majority of benefit claimants are not capbable of managing large sums of money and budgeting; and come to think of it not many people who work can budget either, look at all the pay day loans and overdrafts that people are effectively living on!!
But it is correct that the state has made the provision that the benefits they pass to the claimant are spent on what they are given for.
To not do so seems to me to be fraud.
If you claim LHA and then spend it drink and drugs is that not a false claim!?
Direct payment is required because tenants cannot be trusted to pay this LHA to the LL.
The problem omust be removed though of councils claiming back LHA paid directly to the LLL in the event that a claim is proven to be false.
The claim MUST always be against the tenant and NEVER the LL
He takes rent in good faith from the tenant and cannot be held to account for the tenant's lies or changes in domestic circumstances which may affect a claim..
UC should be paid directly to the LL without ever being liable to repay UC to the govt.
There are definitely more bad tenants than bad LL and bad LL don't cause the 60 million pounds and more of losses that tenants cause LL every year.
A bank will always take it's charges etc first from a bank account before a LL gets the rent payment.
LL would be subject to the inability of tenants to manage their bank accounts which means the rent doesn't get paid.
Direct payment is the only guaranteed way of rent being paid; but it must be done without penalty against the LL if the claim turns out not to be valid.
The LL will still have to evict which could take over 9 months without any rent coming in.
UC without direct payment to LL at the outset will cause LL to get rid of UC claimants.
These UC claimants will find it it increasingly difficult to source rental property when UC is introduced across the board.
Post a Comment