Councils encouraging law breaking

Reply to the comment left by "Mike " at "30/01/2014 - 00:59":

Mike,
many of the benefit tenants that are being advised to stay until there is a Court order would not be re-housed by the council on intentionality grounds. Many authorities doing this would assist them to get another private sector property, thus passing the difficult tenant on to someone else.
Take thorough references (going to the last landlord but one for a reference - nothing to gain by giving a bad tenant a good reference), get Guarantors, ask for rent in advance as well as a protectable deposit. None of them guarantees, but could indicate whether this is someone that takes it seriously and as such, has some means to provide what landlords require as proof of good intent.

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "29/01/2014 - 16:46":

Yes, the council can continue paying the rent, for up to 4 weeks to cover the "notice" period, if the tenant has moved out and is now living at a new address. However, it has to be the tenant that requests this "overlapping Housing Benefit" to cover the notice period. Tenants are not usually aware of this, and the councils never tell them about it, so if landlords want to get Housing Benefit during the notice period then they need to know how to do this and they need to tell the tenants how to do this (or even help them make a claim for it).

Most of this thread relates to housing benefit situations. A further sinister twist to my personal situation which does NOT involve benefits at all has emerged.

To recap. 1/. Tenant served Sec 21 Notice because I need VP to sell property. No problem. 2/. Tenant goes to Council seeking housing. 3/. Tenant told by Council of their right to stay as stated at foot of Sec 21 Notice. 4/. I contact Council asking why this happens to be told they are "statutorily" bound to give this "advice" (same as CAB do). 5/. No problem for me as tenant is decent person and she's gone BUT, and here's the real nasty rub. 6/. She tells me afterwards that when speaking with Council again she was told that her failure to take their advice and stay on in property to my detriment, may (?) result in her ongoing application for re housing being "disadvantaged". What an appalling threat?

I am following this up with the Council asking, as Ray Davison suggested, what is the statutory obligation they have to advise tenants to ignore terms of SHT agreement they have entered into, However even if it transpires they are bound to give this advice, it is one thing to just give it and quite another to encourage tenants
to follow it backed up with a threat that not to do so might hamper their future chances of being housed.

Although this has not adversely affected me it could have done so quite disastrously and I am aghast and speechless with rage.

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "01/02/2014 - 11:10":

Unfortunately, gatekeeping (as this practice is known) and even turning away vulnerable people who are currently homeless by local authorities isn't new.
If someone has been issued with notice to quit their current home within 28 days in England or Wales, the local authority has a statutory duty to offer advice at the very least even to a single person who doesn't fall into a "vulnerable" catgegory.
I can see that LAs are under considerable pressure to house people - but this is where they need the PRS onboard, not alienated, and perhaps they could be liaising more with other public housing bodies in different parts of the country - surely if an applicant is faced with the prospect of being on the street, accommodation in another part of the country is preferable? Paul Routledge is calling for a national register of let property to stamp out rogue landlords - but such a register would also be very useful to LAs under pressure to rehouse applicants.

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "01/02/2014 - 11:41":

Mandy my tenant is no mug and will never be homeless and just wants to get on the housing list as an option for the future..

To be told that even this aspiration may be "compromised" because she has failed to take the Council's advice to renege on her SHT agreement with me is deeply sinister, frightening and bang out of order.

Is it political, anti landlord who knows?

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "01/02/2014 - 12:04":

I wasn't meaning to imply in any way that your tenant is a vulnerable person applying to a homeless person's unit - I was simply speaking in general terms about the current state of affairs. Yes, I agree it's appalling - but I've even heard of worse - see the Crisis website.
Something has got to give here - if LAs had access to a centralised database of all landlords (both private and public) with available housing stock it might take some of the pressure off. As I suggested, this is yet another way in which LRS Paul Routledge's landlord register would be useful.

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "01/02/2014 - 11:10":

Although the LA advises the tenant to stay beyond the notice period, and this of course impacts on the LL due to some court costs, are you saying the LA do not pay for the complete period up until the tenant actually leaves ?
I have had tenant(s) in this position, and the LA paid right up to the day of the bailiff.

Surely this extra period of time gives the LA more time to find an appropriate home for the otherwise homeless tenant ?

They are also saving taxpayers money if the the tenant ends up in a B&B, since the house they are being thrown out of is probably costing them less than the B&B will.

...Of course none of this applies if the tenant has 'cocked up' their HB claim and you are not getting any anyway !

Several contributors said that their tenant was breaching or reneging on his tenancy agreement by staying beyond the expiry date of a s.8 or s.21 notice.
Do you have a clause if your agreements stating that the tenant must surrender the tenancy when served notice? (I don't think that'd be enforceable)

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "01/02/2014 - 17:09":

HB does not apply in my case at all. Jeremy. My tenant being decent would probably carry on paying rent which she can afford while the court process takes its course but this would not help me at all. .

Actually this is happening right now and the tenant, God bless her, has ignored LA advice and vacated so I can sell with VP on 3 Feb.

The point is this that I literally need the sale proceeds to repay a debt next week. Had I told my creditor - a mortgage lending bank - that tenant had refused to leave so sale and debt repayment is postponed indefinitely they would likely foreclose on the property the debt is secured against. It is my family home!!

Need I say more about the impact on me of the Council sticking its oar in as it has done. I've got away with it but only due to decency of my tenant.

I await a response from the Council to my question re what statutory requirement they claim to have to give advice to tenants in situations like this where HB is not involved. And like I said before drawing attention to tenants' rights is one thing but actively encouraging them to exploit this loophole is quite another.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "01/02/2014 - 17:09":

Good point though fortunately I'm out of the woods anyway now. Phew!

The SHT agreement does say "Landlord gives notice that if property is subject to a mortgage etc etc possession may also be recovered under Ground 2 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the 1988 Housing Act where (b) the mortgagee requires possession to dispose of it with VP". This is precisely my scenario.

Maybe this would have saved my bacon had the crunch come? Maybe Councils should ask if such a clause is included in a SHT agreement before egging a tenant on to ignore Sec 21 notice to quit?