DSS/ Housing Benefit Tenants

I will never rent to a Housing Benefit tenant ever again.

After the week I have had, I have had a drastic re-think on my strategy. I used to be quite an advocate of renting to Housing Benefit tenants, as long as they are kept on a tight leash.

In a previous article  I stated that out of thirty DSS tenants I had rented to over the years, precisely three of them turned out to be good tenants. We can scratch that and make it two.

The problem began when my tenant of 18 months, got himself a commission only job. His benefit was stopped, and he received a pittance of a wage. A month down the line, he couldn't pay his rent. At this point he quit his "job" and reapplied for Housing Benefit. They agreed he would get backdated rent payments, as his payslips showed he had received no money at all in his two months in the real world.

They also said there would be six weeks before the claim would result in a pay out.

At this point, he was three months in arrears. I issued him an eviction notice, mainly to speed the process up, and get the notoriously slow Swindon Council moving.

The Council would not pay me directly, as he was not "at risk" of not paying me, as he was not considered addicted to anything, gambling, drink or drugs.

At some point over the last week, he received a cheque for £1200 from the council, and he decided to ignore the fact I had given him a place to stay when he was homeless, and could not get accomodation anywhere else, and keep the money.

Having told me he had transferred it, he then disappeared. The next day, having got access to the property, he had left a note, saying he had gone to Canada, and requested us to find a home for his cat. Which was cowering under the table.

Unfortunately the RSPCA have said they would have to put it down, and the two cat sanctuaries in Swindon have also said they cannot take it.

The simple fact of the matter is, despite my precautions, and the fact the tenant had been a good tenant for 18 months, the current system is rife for abuse, and the landlord is simply not protected.