Universal Credit trial increases arrears by a factor of seven!

you two should get married.
governments love it when the people argue with each other. because they are distracted from the real issues facing them.

lets now just focus at the problems we all face and look for a solution that works for all.

a hint; very recently squatters rights got thrown out of the window.
did the squatters break into other properties ? no.
they all just disappeared, went home to mum or shacked up with friends.
but, you have to admit there are no more squatters.
one problem solved.

now this may interest you all but within any new legislation there are provisions to add modifications, little changes and tweeks which prove beneficial and enhance and strengthen the original law.

and these changes can be made within a matter of weeks rather than years.

THIS IS WHAT WE TARGET.
a change in the law to make non payment of rent a criminal offence could be added to the scrapping of squatters rights. by giving any non payer the new status of squatter.

this would strengthen the existing law and could prove beneficial for all, councils, PLLs, good tenants and social LLs

the only losers are bad tenants.

they want something, we want something.
we have to be clear what it is we want.

@Cosmo
Just what i was about to say, its about the practicalities of our business and how we cope with them that this blog is about. I don't know, maybe I was being unclear or allowed myself to be manipulated.

@PJ
Its seems you really want to raise your political views here rather than assist other Landlords which is why this blog exists. I think if you are serious in your comments rather than playing devils advocate then you should be standing for election and furthering your views that way.

That's then end for me on this topic. I started with what I though was a helpful contribution and got drawn into pointless argument. See you on a later topic.

giving up is not helpful for us, arguing isn't helpful for us and doing nothing isn't helpful.
the purpose of any blog is to bring people together and discuss

Just to be clear Cosmo, I'm not giving up (That's not the kind of person I am). However I have decided not to allow myself to be used as a sounding board for political point making. I am sure the landlords across the country have varied political views and if we wish to further them it is via our MP's or indeed to stand for office ourselves. Forwarding those political views is not helpful on here. What is helpful is offering practical information advice and suggestions to other LL in facing the pressures we do even if that advice or suggestion may go against our own political viewpoint. I did that in raising the issue of using Credit Unions to funnel payments of benefits which was then expanded upon by Roberta. In this respect, having a look at Tasker Payment Services will also be of interest to Landlords who offer homes to those on benefits. That really is my final contribution to this thread.

Unfortunately Cosmo for a variety of reasons you can't just have non -payment of rent as a seperate criminal offence,and regarding UC and the reason i'm concerned regarding rent being paid directly to tenants.Criminalising them wont make a jot of difference. Higher end rent collection may become easier but not the one's UC is meant to be targetting.

Regards Ray , When you make statements like "generous benefits" and "watch sky tv all day" you are making a political statement, Just as if i was to say every Benefits recipient is going to ten job interviews a day and cant afford to have a pint.Just stick to what this thread is all about "UNIVERSAL TAX CREDITS"

I don't believe criminalising non-rent payment is a viable proposition though I would like it to be!!
ALL we need is the eviction law to be changed.
So that after 1 month of rental arrears then the tenant should be required to leave the day after the month has elapsed and if they refuse police should assist to remove them.
No County Court involvement at all.
This removal would be a facility that a LL could require; not all LL would wish this to occur, but they could.
The power needs to be put back with the LL.
All tenants would then know if they did not pay the rent the LL could have them removed i month after the rent arrears.
That should concentrate a tenant's mind!!
Pay for Sky, mobile, fags, booze or lose home.
I think the imperative would then force most tenants to make an informed decision of paying the rent before a month has elapsed; knowing their LL could boot them out with the help of the police.
That would solve in one fell swoop all this UC problem.
Having such an eviction condition would encourage LL to let to HB tenant who presently don't because of the way the eviction laws work presently and the useless County Court delays

Paul I think thats a bit draconian and sounds a bit like a Daily Mail rant. However there is a problem with bad tenants [and i've had a few] which needs addressing. The length of time for eviction, The legal aid system, or maybe bad tenants should be put on a national data base to warn other LL's etc. On the flip side i think that tenants need more security, I've known stories of amateur LL evicting tenants for the most ridiculous reasons, Requesting repairs, being late with rent, even LL's relatives visiting and they want the house back. If you want reform and yr a serious LL then there should be more security for Tenants and a speedier process in eviction. Where i do believe you should have criminal proceeding against a tenant is when it can be proved there was wilful damage to property after an eviction.

When you have a choice between being able to eat and paying your rent is it any surprise that people choose to eat first? Some of you have no idea what it is like when you cannot afford to save.

Just a small, but vital point about the length of time before eviction process is brought into the equation. Given that the DWP under the current system has an appalling history of delays in processing and payments of claims (up to five weeks in many cases from the date of a claim being made), plus that many claimants experience 'missing' payments at least twice a year on average through mistakes at the DWP, and then add that the IT system administering Universal Credit is being dogged by problems that will also affect any timely payments delivery, and that under UC tenants with no savings are immediately put one month in arrears, Landlords needs to be a bit more tolerant about how much time elaspes before they decide to evict. Otherwise, if you use the one month and you're out suggestion (such as in a comment above) all Landlords will find that all their tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit or UC will be automatically up for eviction within a month of UC's introduction and many more who manage to survive could well be in trouble further down the line through no fault of their own.

I don't think it is a rant at all.
If I inform my mortgage company that I will not be paying the mortgage because my tenant hasn't paid me what do you think the mortgage company will say?
They certainly WON'T say, 'Don't worry about it, pay us when you can, no we won't mark your credit file with a missed payment and no it won't affect any future credit application with us or any other lender'.................................................yeah right!!
Why should a tenant expect not to be removed as soon as they don't pay rent.
They can only do this due to the pathetic eviction laws which are basically the only reason that I would not rent to HB tenants UNLESS I could obtain RGI on them or a guarantor.
Effectively this means no HB tenant may rent my properties.
Many other LL are of the /SAME persuasion.
I see NOTHING Daily Mail about me being able to recover my property as soon as the tenant stops paying rent for it.
I am being generous in allowing a month to go by before they would be removed.
At least they would have the month to pay up or be booted out.
That is not to say every LL would boot a tenant out after the month had elapsed, they would be responsible for their credit control.
But it would be nice to know that the LL could get rid of them if they don't manage the arrears.
We need the LL to be in control of his asset NOT the courts.
Try staying in anyone's property and not paying for it and see what happens, the police would cart you off for theft.
Just because someone happens to live in a private asset is NO excuse to stay there if no rent has been paid!
As for security of tenure; the lenders won't allow anymore than a year's AST and also if you did give a year's tenancy without a 6 month break clause it causes all sorts of issues with premium tenancies and eviction etc.
LL have to abide by the lenders' conditions and this means tenants may NOT have security of tenure.
A LL should be in control of what he does with his asset at anytime he so chooses.
A LL can via the S21 process remove a tenant without any reason whatsoever and that is as it should be.
Most LL want their tenants to stay.
I have only wanted tenants to leave when they didn't pay me rent.
All the others vacated of their own accord.
So if a tenant wants long term security I won't be selling up for 18 years; any tenants out there want an 18 year tenancy...........................................................NO thought NOT!
To be able to remove a tenant in a timely fashion and that means not 1.2 or 6 months it means 1 month.
Why should I be expected to subsidise a tenant's lifestyle because they can't or won't pay me rent.
I am NOT a charity; my bank wants paying; that is what I use the rent for!
Until this country understands that you cannot be allowed to use the private asset of somebodies; in this case a private property unless you pay for it and if you don't you must vacate immediately there will be less rental property available to HB tenants.
This is just an economic reality.
The PRS cannot support the problems of HB tenants and should NOT.
However NOTHING will be done; which is why when the benefit cap comes in the next 14 days there will be mass non-rent payment.
It will take over 9 months to evict these tenants; possibly even longer with the undoubted massive increase in evictions.
The County Courts will be swamped!
LL will have to expect to cover the mortgage for at least 9 months.
I reckon a lot of LL could be bankrupted by this situation.
Hopefully we will see a mass deportation of these HB claimants up North where things are cheaper.
They just cannot expect to live in the expensive south-east; well they could but that would mean getting a job!!......................they won't be doing that!
They had better get a move on as all the Bulgarians and Romanians will be taking the rental accommodation available.
If HB tenants think things are bad now; you ain't seen nothing yet!?