SMF - Just Installed!

Tenant on universal credit

Started by Bf101, March 25, 2021, 07:13:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bf101

Hi All,

Just wanted to gauge the opinion from landlords on here...under what conditions would you rent your property to a prospective tenant on universal credit?

Also any retuns on experience would be useful.

Thanks

Dilyan

You should ask the prospective tenant if they have a guarantor

Hippogriff

If you think about the pros and cons...

On one hand, you have a Tenant backed by the best rent payer you can imagine, right? HMG.

Sadly, that rent payer is always looking out for their own interests... and will advise the Tenant (who can often be unaware of their options and rights) to take you right to the very edge in an eviction situation. That means the Council (if you consider the Council to be == UC, and you kinda can... otherwise, well, you're thinking of UC as me, and you and the others here) could be a thorn in your side if things ever turn prickly.

That said... if the Tenant is not feckless and manages their own UC (in that it's paid to them and they responsibly consume it) then you are just looking at someone who is effectively a normal Tenant. The Tenants I have had who receive UC even call it "getting paid"... which is nice (for them). People in receipt of UC are generally less mobile than your professional Tenants... and that is good for some Landlords as it means, unless you're trying to let out some kind of slum shithole, that there's a good chance they'll be long-term... not bad at all.

Remember that UC pays in arrears, effectively... so you have to ensure the Tenant has enough to cover your rent situation - we Landlords charge rent in advance, right? If they can... then that already implies they possibly are able to manage their money.

If, by chance, they are feckless... and incapable of handling their finances, then it is still possible (although a bit more rare these days) to get the UC paid directly into your account... so the Tenant cannot get their grubby hands on it to pay their Sky Sports subscription... or their unlimited data plan... or Special Brew. I have a Tenant in this situation... I am part-Landlord part-Carer and I think that she will probably be 'with me' forever. But, I do not have to worry about the rent of £500 coming in every month... it comes in every month.

All I have to worry about is the fact it won't go up.

El Porto

If a tenant who was employed, suddenly is not and signs on to UC then i have no issue with is. Trust has been built, etc.

If they do not work in the first place, what "skin in the game" do they have? None. What is the risk to them if they do not pay you the rent? None. What would the consequence be if you took them to court and sued them for missing rent? None.

At least if they are employed they have some standing in society that is jeopordised in some way by not being belligerent.

I genuinely like and care about my properties, and want my tenant to have the same mindset.

Hippogriff

All valid questions and most people will see this. It doesn't change this approach from being discrimination, though. All you need to do is change the attribute you don't like - in this case it's employment status - for another. Some things a person can change, some they can't (like protected characteristics). While it might be fair to say this particular attribute is mutable - people can get jobs - it doesn't change the discrimination. The last assumption is only that, isn't it? You've not indicated you've experienced anything to justify the stance - it may be more that you play it safe (based on the discrimination). And don't get me wrong - the things said aren't necessarily incorrect... they could be correct. Assuming someone in receipt of public money wouldn't like and care about their home is surely a step too far?

Worth spinning this on its head for a moment... plenty of stuff we see here often implies it's the other way around - it's the Landlord who doesn't care one iota about their properties and it's the Tenant who keeps them nice, tries to get the Landlord to show an interest, does small maintenance and improvements themselves... forever banging their head against a disinterested brick wall. Yes? We've all seen it.

heavykarma

It very much depends on the  reasons for being on benefit.I have never set out to take people on benefits,but on a couple of occasions tenants have lost their jobs and I have agreed to let them stay on.In both cases I regretted it.They quickly regressed to being stroppy needy teenagers,and showed no inclination to find work.I was left doing the legwork to get the rent paid.

I agree with El Porto.People who have the mental and physical capacity to work,but choose not to, have a mindset that shows contempt for the poor mugs who pay for them,and are unlikely to show much respect for the property. Agreed,some landlords don't deserve decent tenants either.

Hippogriff

Quote from: heavykarma on June 03, 2021, 08:42:02 AMIt very much depends on the  reasons for being on benefit.I have never set out to take people on benefits,but on a couple of occasions tenants have lost their jobs and I have agreed to let them stay on.

It's an interesting comment that implies an existing tenancy... obviously we'd both agree you have no real say in the matter as to whether they stay on, or not. None of us has the authority to unilaterally end a tenancy because our customer's circumstances changed... no matter how much we might want to, no matter how many alarm bells are ringing loudly (so loudly). That's not a feature we have available to use in our Landlord / Tenant law.

In a sense... I think of this like a car purchase... if the customer passes the checks you can do at the beginning then it's no business of yours where the future payments come from. If they stop coming (for whatever reason) you can, of course, take action... but if they lose their job (and the payments keep coming) of course you cannot. It's almost like their circumstances, once they're in, are none of your business.

Right now, for example... I have two Tenants in arrears. One is on a payment plan, due to being initially furloughed, then being made redundant. One has just started with short rent this month, due to isolation and no immediate assistance from employer or Government (?)... and they're hoping to make it up over the next six months. Of course, I had another Tenant who was £800 in arrears but managed to get the LA to pay that off in its entirety. In none of these circumstances would I contemplate ending the tenancy, even if I could (I think). That's why I say - or have said on a number of occasions - that there are pros and cons worthy of consideration... the main pro is that once everything is set up with UC (and you still can get it paid direct) then it becomes about as steady-state a tenancy as you can imagine - because these folk are less mobile, less aspirational? I like steady-state. But that doesn't mean they live in squalor or trash things, of course it doesn't. My worst Tenants for that are foreign students who pay a lot for a city-centre apartment... and they couldn't change a GU10 bulb, or clean a toilet, to save their life. The biggest con (as opposed to pro) of benefits is that it can be quite an effort to get things set up.

Anyway, I don't think the OP was asking this.  ;)

heavykarma

In both cases they were on periodic tenancies,so I could have issued s21. I  never did serve notice, although the rent being paid was less than before. Happily for me, they each met new partners within a year and moved in with them The pandemic has of course changed things,and people who never thought they would need benefits have no option but to claim them.