It’s not the employee who provides the guarantee for their rent (of course!) - if the position in question is, for example, temporary, or probationary, or affordability of the tenancy is deemed marginal, then a guarantee may be provided by a creditworthy third party to enable an application to succeed.
On this topic I would just add: even taking on board the arrangements mentioned, and without considering the multi-party administrative complexity, the discretionary and conditional nature of universal credit render it inferior security (both in principle and practice). DWP could change this by stepping up as guarantor. That the Nationwide applies the quoted ethos is laudable - they would be an organisation of scale and scope that could comfortably absorb such risks in supplying accommodation. As an insurer, though, their wishing away the hazards does not make them disappear - it merely transfers them to another carrier.
costly to get out a tenant who is on UC or employed ,so no difference there. As emotive as the pets debate… Easy solution. Goverment build social housing… And pay landlords from week ONE… I once said to a man on benefits " at least its guaranteed money " he hit the roof. I know whats its like to be on my uppers ,I HAVE been there. But ask the housing assoc how much they are owed in back rent since the gov started paying tenants direct. Blame the GOV.
On UC the rent is paid from day 1. When someone puts in an application for UC they can have an advance the same day which covers the applicants and everything as it’s for the full amount but I do accept that some people take it as a payout to do what you please with. I can’t tell you how many debates I have had with people who don’t use it for rent and say they’ve used it for other reasons and then blame UC for them being in arrears (as the first payment is around 5 weeks from application hence the advance) and that is not the fault of DWP it’s the tenants fault but to me they are obviously the have no regard for ensuring their rent is paid and could still practice that behaviour even when employed.
another bit that is annoying is that they can be 2 months in arrears , and THEN the council MAY pay you direct… chances of getting that 2 months back is slim… landlords are then at the whim of the council and their rules. You cannot trust the council . Notice we have never had a council BOSS say anything about the system
I’m not sure about the council as they no longer pay housing benefits for UC claimants anymore it is all in with UC and you can request UC to deduct an amount from the claimants UC payment in addition to your monthly rent amount. Again I just want to point out that UC is so much more trustworthy than local councils who were responsible for paying HB which was an absolutely appalling in the way they paid rent to landlords not to mention not even notifying the claimants that something was wrong so please don’t assume council and UC behave the same way because fortunately they don’t.
Your so right Collin. You cannot trust Councils. My local council told an ex tenant of mine to go home and wait for the Bailiffs to come before they approached the council for housing. The council knew full well that the bad tenants were ultimately going to be their responsibility yet chose to advise them to stay-put knowing it was going to cost me considerable extra money to execute the eviction.
I did go to the council and complain bitterly at their bad practice which they promised to change but I haven’t had the opportunity to test their new -found integrity
Ahhhhh , I wondered when someone would play the discrimination card.
So if I were to fill my properties with UC individuals would that not be discriminating against non UC applicants?
Ahhhh Geoff perhaps you could point me in the right direction of a forum discriminating against non UC individuals (incidentally I am not UC but severe disability premium)).
I visited this forum, albeit briefly, to establish why Openrent are still discriminating against people on benefits… given it is now rightly illegal. I was so disgusted by some of the feed I felt compelled to write something. Having said that I doubt everyone on this forum is a bully eh Geoff, that would be stereotyping all landlords.
The word" integrity" and "local council " will NEVER go together I have not seen it in 40 years of being a landlord . And the last ten? Say no more. Since council houses were sold off and rent paid direct to tenants DOWNHILL
Forum chat simply doesn’t cut it. I was simply stating a valid fact that your suggestion would create a scenario against none UC applicants who could raise complaint that they were being discriminated against .
What you fail to realise is that the Landlord has chosen to invest in property and that property belongs to him and he alone makes an educated selection of what he considers to be the most suitable tenant to occupy “his premises”. I don’t hear of any parliamentary act dictating who I can or can’t allow to ride in my car! The occupants of which are there by the “owners” personal invitation and the same applies to property.
Landlords have to abide by rules and regulations which are designed to fundamentally assure the safety of their tenants to which the great majority of property letting owners comply. We pay taxes in accordance with the demands of HMRC and I will strenuously resist anybody or anything dictating who I have to allow as a tenant in any of my properties regardless of who they are or their personal circumstance.
Please understand and appreciate that my investments are absolutely none of your business and conversely yours are of no interest to me. Perhaps rather than ranting about litigation on who you can sue next your time may be better spent focussed on local government and get them to invest in building appropriate property for your needs.
By implying that anyone who disagrees with your agenda is a bully you sound to have a massive chip on your shoulder and an attitude that won’t do you many favours with the Landlord fraternity
Collin thanks for your agreement to the comments I made.
It’s absolutely ridiculous that we are been cross examined on our property possessions regarding who we invite to be a tenant and she has got the nerve to imply that she’s being bullied!! I think it would be more accurate to say that it’s her who’s attempting to bully by threatening litigation against a “supposed” act of discrimination.
I wish her every success in securing a tenancy but one things for absolute certain, with such an attitude that she’s displaying I would never provide housing to an individual like her regardless of circumstance.
Tina, your attitude is appalling and very brash and off putting and your certainly not doing yourself any favours but it would be wrong to stereotype all tenants as arrogant and demanding on this forum , eh Tina!!!
tenants on benefits and pets create the biggest postbag of for and against !!! No one will tell me who to put in my own properties. I decide on merit and suitability, do I gell with their lifestyle, , do I like them, can they pay, etc
My ‘attitude’ was merely me voicing an opinion that I feel strongly about. I am a trained psychologist and it appears to me that you have used a lot of words of which you have no comprehension of their meaning, and let’s face it, you know nothing about me. I guess if you consider me off putting, then ‘the cap must fit’ eh Geoff. I am not going to entertain you any further, find someone else to bash, something it appears you are VERY good at!
Whilst I can empathise with the applicants on UC etc has everyone lost sight of the fact these are privately owned properties and the owner should have every right to select a tenant he considers suitable without being dictated, interrogated or bullied into accepting an applicant! What’s next, are we going to be forced into housing drug addicts together with the madam-sin brigade???
I’m happy to comply with the specifics of advertising but the final choice of occupants is and will always be mine!
I am with you on this .We own, we decide, we can give all a hearing and if we dont hear what we like or like what we hear… no chance. Just be careful how you phrase the rejection., and what you say to the council
This is why there needs to be more government controlled housing for those who can’t afford anything more. Or perhaps charities that own housing to provide for those who have no other options.
As long as private landlords have to provide the bulk of housing for the most vulnerable population, this problem is going to happen.