Successful UC direct to landlord

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Successful UC direct to landlord

    Well after making a claim to UC online a couple of months ago I've this month received rent in full from UC on behalf of my tenant.
    I have also been told I will receive an arrears payment each month.
    So it appears my tenant has been pocketing the housing allowance for herself.
    I suggested this to the lady in the phone and asked if they will investigate this fraud but she could not disclose anything.
    All the tenant had to show to claim this allowance was a 5 year old tenancy agreement which has subsequently changed verbally (rent increase).
    I am still going to evict this tenant asap but it feels like small win to receive some money.
    Anyone else had any experience of this?
    At least my small claim for rent arrears won't keep growing, it's close to 10k as it is.

    #2
    The Direct payment is very inconsistent. Sometimes you get it straight away especially if the tenant confirms on their journal. Sometimes it takes 3-4 attempts. Every time I dont get it I put in a new U47 which is all online now. I sometimes do it twice a month. Just dont give up. Keep requesting it. As regards to tenants not paying rent after receiving housing payment element. I have had a VERY few cases where some arrears were taken and paid to me but in general I have found that DWP are not interested in this. They have paid the housing element. They have done their bit!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Propertygoesup View Post
      So it appears my tenant has been pocketing the housing allowance for herself.
      I suggested this to the lady in the phone and asked if they will investigate this fraud
      As discussed (many times) before there is no benefit fraud here at all.

      A benefits claimant is entitled to certain benefits, how they then choose to spend those benefits is then up to the claimant.

      If they choose not to spend their housing allowance to pay for their housing then that is a matter between them and their Landlord, who can get direct payments set up or evict, but it's nothing to do with the DWP and it is not benefits fraud.
      (Just like a worker choosing not to spend their wages on rent is nothing to do with their employer, simply a matter between the tenant and the LL).

      There is no benefits fraud so there is nothing for the DWP to investigate.

      PS. More than 85% of benefit fraud allegations made by the public are found to have no basis whatsoever.
      Think about that - Nearly 9 out of 10 benefit fraud allegations are wrong, at best mistaken at worst deliberately malicious.

      (That rises to over 90% where disability benefits are involved).
      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8144096.html

      The main reason for that ridiculous rate of false allegations is because those making the allegation do not understand the benefits system.
      False/incorrect/malicious allegations are a waste of taxpayers money.

      Comment


        #4
        Feel free to have me investigated for benefit fraud as I always use my "Winter fuel allowance" to buy more wine
        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

        Comment


          #5
          We won't snitch as long you share the wine... 😁🍷

          Comment


            #6
            Wine warms you up, so no problem there.

            Comment


              #7
              Keep smiling folks! 👍🤗😷... Covid doesn't stop laughing, nor do other threats...

              Best regards everyone!
              I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

              Comment


                #8
                It does stick in the craw though doesn't it - when a tenant receives money from tax payers to put a roof over their head and then buys beer and fags with it?

                I think benefits should be paid in vouchers so they can only be spent on what they are for. child Benefit was historically paid to mothers to prevent it being drunk down the pub so why not pay LHA in vouchers that the LL can redeem?

                The problem with paying cash to the claimant is that the Council has fulfilled its duty in paying; the tenant has spent it and the LL is out of pocket!

                Have you noticed how this sort of thing is different for social housing LLs? It is only private LLs who have to meet all the legislation and yet have no guaranteed access to their due rent. .

                Comment


                  #9
                  'Spent on beer and fags' is simply government propaganda, so they don't have to admit that benefits don't pay enough to buy food and other houshold needs.
                  Just like they say the rise in foodbank use is a choice and not a need, despite what everyone else including the foodbanks are telling them.

                  Originally posted by jpucng62 View Post
                  why not pay LHA in vouchers that the LL can redeem?
                  Don't you imagine that that has been thought about before?
                  And that there are very good reasons why it is not done?

                  To start with it would immediately create a black market in rent vouchers.
                  Sold for about half their face value in cash that can be spent on other than rent. (Usually food, not beer and fags).

                  The loan sharks would soon be heavily invested, taking rent vouchers probably for a quarter of their face value against illegal loans.

                  Oh, and the rent still wouldn't get paid.

                  All previous benefit voucher schemes that have been tried have created an instant black market.
                  (And still do in countries like the USA which have voucher schemes).
                  When child benefit had books of weekly vouchers loan sharks would take them as 'collateral'; that's one of the reasons why they where stopped.

                  Nobody wins from a benefits voucher scheme except the criminals.

                  The usual next (again not thought through) suggestion is that the vouchers could have the particular landlords name on them.

                  But unless you do that for every claimant then that's no different for the current direct payment system, just with the extra step/cost of issuing and redeeming vouchers instead of straight into the bank.

                  And if it was done for every claimant then that would be the equivalent of making each private landlord with a tenant claiming housing benefits a government housing contractor, and there is no doubt that you would then have extra rules to follow or you would not be able to get your name on the vouchers.

                  That's just the first 2 unwanted consequences of a rent voucher scheme, there are others but those two are usually enough for most to see why benefit voucher schemes are not a good idea.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Why shouldn't people on benefits have beer and fags?
                    Along with a "huge flatscreen TV".

                    The notion of only helping the deserving poor to subsist is Victorian.
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Ok - so slightly facetious comments shot down in flames.

                      The problem is that until LLs can be sure of receiving housing payments paid to tenants there is going to be a reluctance to take those tenants on. There is a huge shortage of social housing and if Councils / Govt are serious about private LLs filling the gap there needs to be some sort of guarantee of payment for LLs in order to encourage them to provide decent affordable homes.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by jpucng62 View Post
                        The problem is that until LLs can be sure of receiving housing payments paid to tenants there is going to be a reluctance to take those tenants on. There is a huge shortage of social housing and if Councils / Govt are serious about private LLs filling the gap there needs to be some sort of guarantee of payment for LLs in order to encourage them to provide decent affordable homes.
                        Agreed.

                        But it's a cornerstone of UC that the government want claimants to be in charge of (how they spend) their benefit money once they have recieved it.
                        If for no other reason than saving the DWP money but putting the admin responsibility on the claimant.

                        And as pointed out if it was made general practice to pay rents direct to the LL then that would no doubt come with conditions and extra work for the LL.

                        There would no doubt be other issues, eg. with tenantants not topping-up rent above LHA because 'the DWP sort the rent out'.
                        I can also spot two or three very easy opportunities for fraud by criminal 'landlords', I won't spell them out.

                        The current system is not perfect, no system ever will be, but you need to think carefully before replacing an existing system with something untried.
                        (Which is where most of the teething problems with UC came from and are still coming from - they thought 'that's a good idea' but didn't think everything through properly and keep having to rethink and come up with work-arounds).

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Hopefully I have stopped the rent arrears from increasing as I've had UC paid direct to me last month.
                          I now want to either make a statutory demand or a money claim online to claim the arrears ( close to 8k).
                          Any thoughts on which one to use? Mcol will cost me £410 , not sure if the statutory demand costs anything ?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            It's probably not worth it for a tenant on UC, repayments will be set very low because of their circumstances.

                            If you haven't already then it may be better (and easier) geting an amount for arrears added to you MPTL that you now have with UC, but that will also be low.

                            With UC 3rd party deductions for arrears can be greater than with legacy benefits, but deductions for rent arrears are normally 10% of the claimants 'Standard Allowance', but can be up to 20% if there are no other arrears to be deducted. (That repayment doesn't affect the ongoing rent direct payment, that will still also be paid).

                            So for a single person over 25 that would be a 10% deduction for rent arrears of £40.90 a month.
                            Note that if the claimant has other arrears to pay out of UC then that may/will be reduced.

                            There is a priority order as to which arrears get paid first, basically the DWP take anything owed to them first.
                            Rent/service charge arrears are 7th and 21st in the priority order depending on the rate.
                            See 'Annex A' here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/universa...yments#annex-a
                            7. Rent and/or service charges arrears (at 10% of the standard allowance).
                            .
                            .
                            21. Rent and / or service charges arrears (maximum deduction rate of up to 20% of the standard allowance)

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Thanks for the info. Mcol is probably a waste of £410 as I'll get nothing back. Would statutory demand achieve anything?

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X