Quote of the day...on renting to housing benefit tenants

****

It's always good to read something considered on a subject that caused much froth and bother in the media. It's from the always readable and helpful (I know, I know, she's a lawyer) Tessa Shepperson at the Landlord Law Blog:

The whole question of housing those on benefit is a tricky one. Although there are many, many excellent tenants on benefit, overall they tend to be more problematic:

• They have less income than most working tenants and so finding money to pay rent is inevitably going to be harder

• The housing benefit received is generally less than the market rent – so either the landlord has to accept a lower rent (and why should they do that?) or the tenant has to make up the difference – which will not be easy for them

• Rent is not paid direct to landlords by the benefit authorities in most cases

• Benefit Offices are not known for their efficiency and landlords often have long waits before payment is received

• Benefit tenants as a group contains more people with some sort of personal problem – these are after all people who are unable to get or hold down a job

• It appears that rent guarantee insurance is not available

For an example of a well meaning landlord renting to a single Mum on benefit, coming unstuck look no further than Kate’s Story on this blog.

Tessa goes on to remind us that the private landlord has no duty to house the homeless or people on benefits but also to make some sensible suggestions including:

If a landlord is willing to rent without rent guarantee insurance, there are things that can be done.

Insisting that tenants have their benefit paid to a Credit Union which offers ‘jam jar’ accounts is one, or using the Tasker Payment service is one.

It is arguable that this is a better option than having benefit paid direct to the landlord, as then the benefit office is unable to ‘clawback’ the benefit from the landlord if it later turns out that there has been an over payment.

A good blog on a subject more characterised by screams about landlords being evil than anything that might actually help house the homeless. Plus Tessa finishes with something we all know:

Another reason why the government needs to start building.

Although I would add "in London and the South East" - a point well made in the comments to the blog.

...

Shelter should be supporting the private rental sector not trying to regulate it to death

****

In an egregious piece of research (in every sense of the word), Shelter claimed - more or less - that private landlords were killing children:

Shelter’s research, released today, based on a YouGov survey carried out in November last year of 4,327 adults in England living in the private rented sector, found 44 per cent of the respondents said their child would have a better childhood if they had a more stable home.

Well not quite killing children. And not even half of the respondents either. Indeed it is true that many people living in private rented property, just like many living in the social housing sector, would have wished for a more stable place to bring up the children. However, it simply does not justify the over-the-top comments from the big Shelter boss:

Shelter’s chief executive Campbell Robb said the findings of its report Growing up renting proved ‘that today’s volatile rental market is simply not fit for purpose’.

Now I don't wish to be boring here but what Shelter are doing (egged on by the Labour Party and local council leaders who really should know better) is mounting an attack on private landlords. The idea that private landlords would prefer to kick out a tenant after six months is arrant nonsense - the volatility is mostly down to the tenants not the landlords.

If these idiots from Shelter (and the Labour Party) get their national register of landlords - doubtless under the aegis of a new regulatory body, OfRent or whatever - the result will be to raise rents, reduce supply and exacerbate housing problems in places such as London. Instead of damning landlords with exaggerated claims of their evil nature, Mr Robb should be supporting the private rental sector, helping it to meet the complicated and varied needs of people needing housing.

But then that wouldn't get a headline, would it?

....

Housing quality vs housing supply?

****

While part of me welcomes this sort of initiative, it does seem also that it will do precisely nothing to address the housing challenges especially in London:

‘All landlords should be licensed and required to raise the quality of their homes to the decent home standard required by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

‘If they are unable to do so, they should hand over long-term management of their property to a social letting agency in return for a fixed, lower rate of return. The social lettings agency could raise funds on the open market, allocate on the basis of need and have a more supportive, community-based relationship with their tenants.’

We need to decide whether we care more about housing quality or about housing supply. We can't address both at the same time.

....