Should you include all benefits in affordability referencing?

I had the same concerns. My personal view is that PIP should not be part of rent however it is allowed as part of income in a mortgage application but more importantly accepted by RGI. I have now switched to using RGI so as long as tenant passes affordability usually 2.5 to 3 times rent including PIP then I am de-risked, if they lose PIP later RGI will kick in if they can’t pay rent. The cost of RGI is simply factored into the rent increase/new let. I am using Alan Boswell.

I would not include any other benefits in my affordability calculations.

All but one of my properties is below the LHA rate for the area/number of bedrooms.

One set of tenants claims LHA that I know of. I’m increasing this one to the LHA rate next time. The tenants won’t care because they don’t pay it and I’ll buy them a nice present at Christmas.

It’s my way of fighting back at this dreadful government.

They are looking hard at pip at the moment as apparently the disabled had been abusing the payment by using it to pay bills ( yes they really called that abuse) . So I believe it must never be included in that affordability calculation.

One idea is that pip claimants would instead get ‘valid’ receipts refunded or even a dedicated credit card that can only be used for medical expenses.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 17/04/2026 – 15:26
I am actually truing to find a referencing company who do not use PIP in their affordability assessment criteria. It seems many do include this, yet this is a handout specifically for the persons disability. They seem to bundle it all in as ‘incomings’ where clearly this should not be used for this purpose.

I think on this basis a LL can genuinely refuse any applicant who is relying on PIP to meet the affordability criteria as a result. This is not discriminating against those on benefits. This is a responsible landlord saying this payment has been awarded for their individual specific needs and therefore sits separately to any housing subsidy they are separately eligible for.

I’d be interested in understanding more of what you have read/found about about the government deeming abuse of PIP when it is used to pay bills.

This could be a very significant factor in LLs being legitimately able to refuse benefit tenants because they cannot include PIP within rental affordability assessments.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 18/04/2026 – 18:08
The government is currently running a second survey on pip (link attached) my wife is a recipient so I am aware of the government concerns. The abuse comment was from the first survey which was only a year ago (I guess they got the wrong answers).

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/timms-review-of-personal-independence-payment-call-for-evidence/timms-review-of-personal-independence-payment-call-for-evidence

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 18/04/2026 – 18:08
What is your specific concern about PIP? I understand your logic that PIP shouldn’t be used for rent but if PIP is removed that’s no different from someone on a full time jobs hours being cut or fired. If you are concerned about the ability to pay future rent then RGI is your safety net, and they accept PIP so not really sure the risk of PIP beyond any other loss of income?

Reply to the comment left by JaSam at 20/04/2026 – 18:49
Very different as a PIP recipient is usually very unlikely to be able to make up that loss by taking on additional work. As mentioned above the government wants to move PIP away from a cash benefit into a proven medical needs regime so not only could they be able to no longer afford top up to any housing payment but a judge is highly likely to give a disabled tenant much more time before granting eviction on arrears grounds

Reply to the comment left by JaSam at 20/04/2026 – 18:49
the point is PIP is
1. not given to the recipient for housing need. UC47 can only be filled in if the LL is seeking to have direct payment of rent subsidy. The DWP process does not allow deductions from PIP to make up up housing costs. If the T is showing more reliance on the PIP amount in particular to make up the rent difference between LHA amount and actual rent figure, this is not a reliable source of ‘income’ because it is based on their personal needs. With other benefits the amount the claimant receives is worked out according to their employment status. ie working, not working , self employed etc. They will always be in one of these categories so there will be an understood ‘income’ of some type/value.

With PIP it is based on persons own disability which is not so black and white. If their circumstances change they could be eligible for nothing, or something. Awards are also time limited.

If PIP is accepted as part of the affordability criteria, and RGI is gained, going through possession for rent arrears is going to be even more complicated. If the courts are aware PIP was being fully relied on to fund the total rent, then they will view this as a more vulnerable tenant that someone not claiming PIP.

There is a very high risk that the T or T defence/even the court will use this as more of a reason to hold up an eviction delay, rather than grant one even when the criteria is met.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 20/04/2026 – 20:54
exactly my worry. The courts get wind of the T being on PIP and deemed ‘more vulnerable’? you can see the direction of travel….

The title of this post is about affordability not evictability. I get what you’re saying but PIP can be awarded to anyone. If someone needs PIP to get over the affordability line and you don’t count it you’re basically opening yourself up to discrimination claims, whether that’s what you meant or not because everyone else does accept PIP as income. So you don’t really have much to stand on. I actually agree with you, but that’s just how things are. RGI is basically the only real protection you’ve got. And judges being more lenient with PIP is a whole different conversation.