This may seem surprising to Tory ministers, but landlords often prefer to let their properties to people who are on the dole. Far from being unattractive tenants, people who are in receipt of welfare benefit fulfil the prime objective of the landlord, which is to get the rent paid on time. With welfare tenants, the landlord gets his rent like clockwork.

Iain Duncan Smith wants to change this. He wants claimants to receive payments straight into their bank account in one lump sum, and then allocate the rent and other outgoings accordingly. The problem with this system is that the tenant may fail to make rent payments.

Many people on welfare are not there temporarily. Many have addictions. If given a choice between the pub and the rent, they will choose the pub. Those with payday loans will want to deal with their debt before dealing with their landlord, which you or I would advise against, since unsecured credit is less important than having somewhere to live. Others just don’t have the ability to forward plan, and that’s why they are poor.

I have a neighbour who took out a payday loan because he wanted his daughter to have a more expensive school uniform than all the other kids. His partner only discovered this when a man in a suit appeared on the doorstep, screaming for his money. That family broke up over that payday loan, yet Iain Duncan Smith thinks it’s a good idea to give people responsibility. Maybe he’s right. Maybe I’m just dwelling on the exceptions, but I don’t think so. I think it’s a terrible idea.

Not only will this policy result in lots of people being evicted and homeless, but landlords will no longer have incentive to seek welfare tenants, since payment is no longer reliable. This will result in a large-scale removal of properties from the welfare market, to the private market. If this systematic and massive movement of properties from the welfare to private market were to occur, what likely scenarios can we predict, other than homelessness, for those currently on housing benefit?

It would likely cause private rents to fall. This would be of some relief to those who are employed and have seen significant rent rises since the slowdown of the house building and mortgage market following the credit crunch (or since the election of the Tories).

Would the landlords see these falling rents as a disincentive to the private market? I think that the calculation of landlords is that the tenant who pays on time and doesn’t become a problem is overwhelmingly the main objective. A rent that is10 per cent lower may seem like a big loss, but compared to legal problems and unpleasant evictions, where the tenants are likely to spitefully vandalise the property before leaving, a 10 per cent lower rent is not a great sacrifice.

The pilots for this scheme are in 12 different local authorities. The government will give some extra money in order that advice can be given, which specifically includes housing advice. The problem is that advice doesn’t cause the market to behave the way you would like it to. If properties are being removed from the welfare market in considerable numbers, then having a nice lady from the council giving advice is not that much help.

Nor does the government promise any money to clear up the mess they are likely to make by this policy. If councils are left with massive bills for dealing with a homeless crisis, then who should pay for it?

Here is the list of councils that have agreed to do the pilots.

If one of them is your council, then you might want to ask how they can extricate themselves from pear-shaped policy.

Dan McCurry is a candidate in the members’ section in the Progress strategy board elections 2012. You can find out more about all the candidates at the dedicated Progress strategy board election microsite