Landlords 'ripping off taxpayer over benefit tenants' claim

Am I missing something or was it not ever thus. Especially in a previous system about 12 years ago where different amounts could be claimed for identical properties in different wards for the same LA. This will presumably all stop in April when the maximum weekly payments are changed - unless HB tenants can afford the difference of course. In all this talk about HB and what is going to happen I have not seen one single comment yet about the real problem - that when the payment levels are capped if that also applies to EXISTING claimants (and it is far from clear whether it will or only new ones) then existing Landlords are going to face mounting shortfall payments but need to wait a long time until they amount to 2 months and ground 8 can be used for mandatory possession. Anyone see the other little nugget on the room basis for single young tenants. Originally 21 and changed to 25 about 8 years ago this is now going to be 35 apparently. So in theory younger claimants will get even less

• 22 October 2010 10:59 AM

Absolute rubbish! In the area where I work the local council take on properties directly with landlords. The council offer the landlords the maximum allowance for the size of the property. I have seen the council offer over £100 more than can be achieved on the private market.
The biggest joke is Thanet council. I let a property with Thanet council and they have a scheme where if a council tenant rent a property below the allowance, they will give the tenant the difference. My last tenant was being given £70 a month of tax payer’s money because I let my property for less than the local allowance.
I think Lord Freud needs to investigate what really happen before making such ridicules claims. Each individual property should be assessed and the council should not pay any more than the market value!

• 22 October 2010 10:58 AM

hmm, landlords are a business a bank is a business if someone is not credit worthy a bank charges higher rates or dont give them if a LDA tenant is higher risk than a working tenant then there is more risk what mean higher rent...SIMPLE

end of the day they can gave more money and save the taxpayer by not paying direct to tenants, we have had councils take 4-5 months to approve a claim then they pay it out and the tenants do a runner with the money and go rent with someone else.... if you lose money you have to make it up somewhere...

• 22 October 2010 10:18 AM

Generally, rent defaulters are most likely to be those on benefits, plus there is more wear and tear on the property. Perhaps those landlords are just reacting to market forces ?

It is the same with student properties - more wear and tear, more arrears = more rent.

The fact it is funded by the taxpayer is another issue with different solutions. Nothing to do with the landlord who is probably also ataxpayer.

• 22 October 2010 10:15 AM

Just wait for the tidal wave of housing benefit claimants away from London to the rest of the country. Grrrreat.

BTW are those prison ships still available?

• 22 October 2010 09:40 AM

OMG! Tell me that it's just occurred to the Lord Freud that housing benefit is the fuel to over-priced housing in the UK! What planet is he from? Landlords raise rent, people whinge to Housing departments and the benefit goes up. Wow, that's complex, isn't it? So is the solution, a real mystery!

• 22 October 2010 09:28 AM

Landlords charge benefit tenants what they can get away with. If you want a fright go to the lha-direct website which takes its data from the VOA (I can't put the link on this comment but hopefully a bit of googling will find it)and put in a central London postcode. If you are a family that needs a five bedroom house and want to live in SW1 then the taxpayer is happy to shell out £2000 pw to keep a roof over your head! Where I operate there are not huge numbers of landlords that will accept people on benefit so the ones that do can charge the maximum going rate.

• 22 October 2010 08:42 AM