NRLA urges government to lift LHA freeze

IMO once again the NRLA are taking the wrong approach here. I guess by siding with the like of Crisis/Shelter (both anti-landlord) and these other housing organisations, they feel they are adding credibility to their existence as a champion for both landlords & tenants.

However, because of the RRB, no sensible landlord will now look at taking on those without well paid jobs, savings/assets and good credit etc.

Perhaps if the NRLA came out and said the RRB has now made renting to those on LHA intenible and explained why, they would get more noticed.

Time the NRLA made big changes to their board and approach if they want to attract more members. This is the ideal time to do it with problems landlords are facing.

Reply to the comment left by Lordship at 14/10/2025 – 11:45
“no sensible landlord will now look at taking on those without well paid jobs, savings/assets and good credit etc.“

A sweeping statement . I`m a sensible landlord and I take LHA tenants. On some i will get maybe £300 more pcm than I could with a working tenant. And with over 100,000 of us in the UK who take LHA I am clearly not alone. Maybe you don’t quite fully understand how the LHA system operates within the PRS and what the advantages of that tenant dynamic are

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 24/10/2025 – 16:20
Jonathan, perhaps you are right and I don’t understand how the LHA system operates?
Please enlighten me. Would be interested to see how I maybe able to get £300 extra a month on some of my properties down the LHA route.

I know some landlords have multiple LHA claimants living in one property to get double or more the LHA rate, but this doesn’t sit well with me on principle even if it is legal. Then there are HMO’s which I’m not interested in.

I’m referring to standard tenancies where an individual or family rent a standard house in good areas not the worst part of town and where the LHA rate is now far below what can be achieved with private rents. I want to know if I do have to go down the eviction route – now with S21 gone and other issues brought in by the RRB, I have less chance of losing out financially.

Someone with a decent job, assets you can seize, will have more to lose than someone without these. Far less risk IMO and experience.

Reply to the comment left by Lordship at 14/10/2025 – 11:45
I agree.

The NRLA should be in ‘told you so mode’ to the government, explaining now that as a result of the continuing LHA freeze, those reliant on state help simply cannot meet rent affordability requirements.

Its not LL’s who are discriminating against benefit recipients, it state policy preventing them from being on a level playing field.

Reply to the comment left by Lordship at 24/10/2025 – 17:06
It`s a big subject .

The government is a great payer – but they are not hot on paperwork

My view is everyone is 24hrs away from being on LHA if they are made redundant / sacked and likewise everyone is 24hrs from getting a job. So I look much more at the person rather than the source of their funding . There are very good people and very bad people in both tenant dynamics. Getting the very good ones in either dynamic is down to a robust selection and interview process. Some landlords / vetting agencies are not up to that task

In some geographical areas / estates/ house sizes it just won’t work . So one has to remain flexible in your approach as to where and what you invest in . I dont do HMO`s either even though LHA there can be very lucrative . I just do single lets but I look at who is entitled to what within those single lets

But if you won’t invest out of a principle you personally hold in a certain type of housing / housing set up then we might hit a brick wall in moving forward. I would have to challenge your principle successfully first by gently suggesting it might be a misplaced principle to change your way of thinking . What is this principle you speak of, can I ask ?

So in my area if you are after only a good area that stereo typically means not a low grade council estate and so no it probably won’t work . The LHA rate doesn’t discriminate; it goes with the person, not the value of the house . So a 4 bed rate will go with a 200K house the same as it will a 500K house . So if you wouldn’t invest in a 200K style house only a 500K one the LHA won’t work for you .

If you invest in certain estates in my area a 4 bed 200K house LHA you get £1500 pcm hence a 9% yield . A working tenant may pay only £1200 pcm hence for the same house so there is the £300 gain. Other ways to maximise LHA are putting a mum and a 2mth old baby in a studio flat and you get the 2 bed rate . Would you consider that and if not why not can I ask ?

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 24/10/2025 – 17:38
“Its not LL’s who are discriminating against benefit recipients“

Many many LL`s do though discriminate against benefit recipients. They just wont entertain the thought for a variety of reasons. The lenders also discriminates against them until they were told not to . Insurers discriminate against them .
But I agree the state is so much to blame for allowing the situation to get even worse as the rental values fall even further behind . When they froze them about 5 years ago I reduced my exposure to LHA . When it unfroze it in 2024 I started taking some selected tenants back in. Some councils are exasperated by governments action as it makes their job of housing the homeless much more difficult Mine uses DHP to fund the difference and I`ve used that funding many times to make the model work

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 25/10/2025 – 11:32
Agree on this too – but it’s a separate point to the point of the LHA being capped therefore making the accommodation unaffordable to a benefit claimant.

Lets face it – the reality is landlords in the main prefer not to rent to benefit claimants for choice (for a number of reasons myself included) UNLESS there is a financial benefit in some way. (like the example you give)

The risk of someone who clearly has no skin in the game, who is not putting their own money into the rent/deposit and knows the rent element part of HB/UC is always seen as the tenants money first and foremost before the accommodation is paid for, then taking on a benefit tenant is always going to be a major risk/problematic. The fact that the tenant can take the money not pay the rent and still stay in the accommodation until the landlord gets possession IS I suggest the biggest issue of all (especially when there is no understanding of when possession can be secured)

So when it comes down to it, the RRB or any other legislation that is enacted as to not to discriminate against benefit claimants, will NEVER work unless the benefit process and procedures themselves change to ensure that benefit claimants are front he start on a level playing field when they apply.

Until then I will reject benefit claimants for reasons I feel are perfectly justified even if I have to use the ‘unaffordable’ reasoning as the official line.

In fact, I am considering using the EPC info for the property as another consideration when it comes to looking at true affordability when tenants apply.

Much as I detest the useless certificate, it does provide a figure associated to the AVERAGE cost of heating the property and so is a perfectly viable document to use in this context.

Given that there is clear evidence to show that a lack of heating of accommodation can cause problems associated with internal condensation/mould etc, then taking the tenants income into consideration to see if they can actually afford to heat the property sufficiently IS and should be another factor in determining true affordability and the ability for the tenant to be able to sustain the tenancy and keep the property healthy.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 25/10/2025 – 11:32
Yes I too have suggested the DHP route for councils to use to get a tenant off their temp accommodation and into one of my private lets.

A simple breakdown of cost makes it clear for them to see its a no brainer and cheaper for them to off load the expensive temp accommodation user to me.

The only issue is the DHP budgets are being squeezed and the councils are not being as proactive as they may have been previously (said with tongue in cheek!).

Going to be very interesting to see what councils will have to resort to next to get numbers off their temp housing lists/general housing lists in light of the RRB.

If no more than the first months rent in advance can be paid, and deposit capped at 5 weeks, yet the risk of taking on a benefit tenant has clearly increased for the PRS, then they are going to have to be very inventive indeed especially as they have always also demand a min 12 month AST as part of the ‘package’.

Everything turning monthly periodic lands councils with a huge problem – the LL can’t even legally offer a min tenancy, so what are the council going to do now to secure that private rental?

The one or two more ‘proactive’ housing officers I have spoken to, see the issue but don’t have an answer. The rest are not even interested. One (huge) Council I deal with when offered a vacant one bed flat recently actually said they are not interested and would NOT be looking through their lists (despite having a huge demand for one bed accommodation) – they are only looking at/prioritising securing 2 – 4 bed sized units!

At this rate there may actually be a reduction in housing officers required – the system will be logjammed. Lists just added too with no one being moved off them….

JC, I agree with what Reluctant Landlord has said.
“The risk of someone who clearly has no skin in the game, who is not putting their own money into the rent/deposit and knows the rent element part of HB/UC is always seen as the tenants money first and foremost before the accommodation is paid for, then taking on a benefit tenant is always going to be a major risk/problematic. The fact that the tenant can take the money not pay the rent and still stay in the accommodation until the landlord gets possession IS I suggest the biggest issue of all (especially when there is no understanding of when possession can be secured)”.
Now having to use S8 for eviction has made being a landlord high risk. Many tenants now will exploit the RRB. If you’ve ever had to evict a tenant in the past you will know how stressful it can be.
JC – “Other ways to maximise LHA are putting a mum and a 2mth old baby in a studio flat and you get the 2 bed rate . Would you consider that and if not why not can I ask ?”
Well for me a 2 bed rate is meant for 2 people, with a room each. Let’s face it if the LA say that a mother and baby are entitled to a 2 bed rate, it’s because that’s what they expect them to have. They may well know they are only living in a studio without ANY separate bedrooms, but they are desperate to house them so they go along with it.
I appreciate at 2 months old the child won’t often have it’s own room. What happens as the child gets older?
It would not sit well with me to see a mother with a baby living in a studio flat if I owned one (I don’t), even though this may well be the reality for many. Plus for me, I don’t want to be a landlord exploiting this issue.
But for those landlords who are happy to run their business this way, then I’m sure there are many tenants that appreciate them.

Reply to the comment left by Lordship at 28/10/2025 – 09:20
“It would not sit well with me to see a mother with a baby living in a studio flat if I owned one (I don’t), even though this may well be the reality for many. Plus for me, I don’t want to be a landlord exploiting this issue.”

The problem will be that if LHA rates don’t keep up, then the very same government will be ensuring landlords will have no choice to rent to benefit claimants on this basis, and in turn the tenants have no choice that to take the only thing on offer.

For a good landlord it really isn’t about ‘gaming the system’ it’s more about making the business of renting actually pay and allow a profit to be made.