I thought the idea of paying HB directly to tenants and not landlords was so that they could not discriminate and not rent their properties due to your status as low income?

It was supposedly first implemented to help people to gain more confidence in handling money and to help learn them to budget and gain more fiscal sense.

This is already in place..at least round here. If you have past problems with rent arrears/large debts, or are, for example a drug addict, the council pays the rent direct to the landlord instead of you. Not sure if this is implemented anywhere else mind but both durham and gateshead councils do this. So the only way round here to get once of these nightmare tenants on benefits that from reading truths posts, seem to be very very common...is for them to have had no issues paying rent wherever they lived previously, and all of a sudden decide to start stealing housing benefit money instead of paying rent...

Also when applying for HB, you get an option to get it paid to the landlord if they insist on it. However you have to sign a form saying you have problems controlling money, even if its not true :S

I don't think its this as (and I have read this on the net mind, not sure if its correct) the landlord has to know if you are on housing benefit as they need a different insurance to cover benefit tenants? As I say it might be wrong, as I read it in another 'rant about HB tenants' thread :shrug:

Yes It says something about that in here that it could be a mortgage requirement too, I thought it could be to end the 'No DSS' landlords that simply discriminated against anyone on welfare as an undesirable.
I'm sure that's how it was touted in it's infancy, it's all cost cutting it seems.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

when tenants steal the rent there is nothing anyone at the council can do to get any back, same with damages, people on housing benefits have no liability as they simply claim they have no money so once theyre finished destroying the house and stealing the benefits they move on to their next victim. in short this system now is even more disastrous. the rent should go direct to the landlord in all cases, but the tenants if they have issues can always go to the council to sort it out.

This is untrue because once its been discovered they are stealing HB, they are taken to court, and ordered to pay it back (even at small payments per week) and once they have a fraud charge, the next place they move to automatically the landlord gets the HB paid to them...

I know paying the stolen money back to the council doesn't help the landlord though,l but its untrue that there is no comeback and also untrue that people can just move on and do the same thing again.

I disagree that rent should always go direct to the landlord because the landlord is less likely to fix problems that are their responsibility if the tenant (or council) is still paying rent. My mother had to withhold rent for nearly 3 months to get her landlord to fix the boiler. Had she not done that, we would have been living with a broken boiler for months on end as the landlord just wouldnt communicate with his tenants. Granted my mother was working and as such wasnt on housing benefit...but the option of withholding rent (not spending it though, keep it separate to give in a lump sum once repairs are done) should always be there IMO.

the landlords are not going to chase down people who live on benefits who in many cases have stolen the rent money to pay for drink or drugs etc its a total waste of time and money chasing these people, so these private landlords are left simply waiting to remove these people , pay for the damages and house repairs and write off the rent money as lost...that's the reality its phenomenally difficult being a landlord in this country

if a landlord wont fix a boiler and you pay by housing benefits then simply ring the council and they will stop the housing benefits and if the house is in disrepair, they will send out a housing offices who may put a compulsory home improvement order on the house....if youre paying privately and the landlord is useless, leave

Again, Truth, I have to point out that if you are in a tenancy contract (which will usually be at least 6 months to a year) and you just up and leave, you will end up with a CCJ against you for the full rent up until the end of the tenancy. Surely as a landlord, you know this?

A couple of months ago a bigger, better house still within my price range (about £100 a month more but easily worth it) became available just across the road. Literally about 50 metres away. We could have moved house on foot without need for a van. But we couldn't, because we're in a contract for the current house until next January.

When next January rolls around, if there aren't any suitable houses for us to move to, we'll have little choice but to sign another six month contract for this one. You can't just "leave" at the drop of a hat. So, we've really had no choice but to force the landlord's hand AND spend our own money (around £1500 so far) repairing and improving this house just to make it somewhere decent to live.

Indeed ;)

if the landlord isn't doing his/her job in maintaining the house i.e. roof/heating/electrics/plumbing etc then he/she is breaking the contract so leave....if the landlord wants to pursue you let him/her you keep evidence of the failure to maintain the property and if the landlord ever takes you to court youll surely win
back to eh point on housing benefits the rules are 100% in favour of tenants to a dangerous and unfair degree...this will see far more massive problems that will lead to deaths