Councils encouraging law breaking

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "29/01/2014 - 13:09":

I entirely agree - this is extremely unfair to both landlords and genuine tenants in real hardship - meanwhile, rogue tenants who simply couldn't care less just sit pretty, until they're evicted and rehoused.

I think the most common form of council promoted abuse of contract is the scam they run so that their "clients", our tenants are not classed as "intentionally homeless".

If a tenant is in arrears, or even if they wish to co-operate with the landlord and leave before they get into arrears, the council advice is ALWAYS to stay put until the tenant is evicted, usually with larger arrears built up, and all the associated court costs. Many tenants don't want any kind of legal battle, let alone court orders issued to evict them, however if they don't fight the landlord via the courts the council will class them as intentionally homeless, thus excluding them from certain benefits.

So the council advice is nearly always to stay put, let the arrears build up then wait for an eviction.

Its not so much the tenant (or council's) fault, more the way the benefits system defines "intentionally homeless".

Extraordinary timing coincidence re this topic!! I served Sec 21 notice on a tenant two months ago as I need to sell the property. Obviously VP is required. An urgent requirement furthermore as cash needed to pay a debt that won't and can't wait.

Tenant quite reasonably applied to Housing Advice team at Stratford DC to get her name on housing list. She was advised to consider staying put and leaving me to go through the courts palaver to get her out. I challenged the council who say they are obliged to give this "advice".

My mouth is still hanging open that this scenario is apparently normal. I challenged the council saying "what about ME and the deep doo doo I'd be in as a result of your advice being taken up?".

Fortunately my tenant is straight as a gun barrel so will stick by her word to me to quit. She too was surprised to be given the advice she was.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "29/01/2014 - 13:40":

Yes it is the tenants responsibility and it is their money. However it is claimed against a specific property which the council verifies by referring to a tenancy agreement. Therefore when changing properties the benefit process should refer to the ending of the original tenancy. I do not know the ins and outs of benefit law however it may not need such deep changes for policy to require a verification that a tenancy has been ended before paying on another.

I would be interested in hearing from someone who may know this inside out, Ben are you out there?

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "29/01/2014 - 13:49":

Richard, I wonder who or what law or policy obliges them to give this advice to tenants. I wonder if pressed whether they have anything concrete to fall back on or is it just their manager who obliges them?

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "29/01/2014 - 13:58":

It sounds similar to NHS bed blocking... i.e. they resort to "parking" service users as the system is falling over big time.

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "29/01/2014 - 13:54":

Exactly, housing benefits are claimed against the property the person currently lives at, with lodger/tenancy agreement required to prove rent is being paid.
How the person came to move is not the council's problem.

Regarding councils advising tenants to stay put until eviction, there are, perhaps cynically, trying to delay having to re-house the person by telling them to make full use of their legal rights. Councils are hard-pressed on budgets and emergency accommodation so they delay as much as they can... at the expense of landlords.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "29/01/2014 - 13:40":

I am aware it is the tenant's responsibility to serve notice - but often they don't - or is that just a Northern thing? I also know that there is no agreement between landlord and housing benefits. My comment was that it is extremely difficult for landlords when arrears can become excessive simply because they do not know the tenant has gone elsewhere. It seems unfair that all that would be required would be a simple sentence - new claim opened elsewhere. They do not divulge any person information, just this one fact, to allow the landlord to re-possess his property as quickly as possible.

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "29/01/2014 - 12:53":

Ahhh i see what you mean now...
I want sure which aspect was being referred to in the original post

My job is 90% tenants on benefits but unfortunately I do not advise landlords so I guess im not really seeing the full picture here. But I can see why this will cause problems for landlords who are then left with unpaid rent which is rightly owed to them.

Citizen's Advice Bureau also give this same advice for tenants to stay put until they are evicted!