Councils encouraging law breaking

Reply to the comment left by "Mike " at "21/02/2014 - 22:57":

Absolutely in agreement, but what do you think if there is a guarantor?

Reply to the comment left by "Jim " at "21/02/2014 - 14:09":

I agree with your comments Jim.

I was at a housing strategy meeting where Hull City Council officers clearly stated they were being 'targeted' to reduce their number of benefits tenants. I know many landlords who have had working tenants targeted by the Council including immigrants (so no drive for supporting local people).

Hull CC start an eviction process within 1 week of a payment being missed and its clear they are trying to improve the quality of their tenants.

Quite ridiculously while they have so many spare properties they have to aggressively chase tenants they state in the local press that they are desperate for more council houses. The rent roll income for Hull CC is £83m per annum, this is the only real potential 'profit maker' for the Council and I believe their social responsibilities are conflicted by their desire to be the biggest Landlord (albeit fully subsidised) in Hull.

Some of the correspondence I've had regarding a friend of mine, with the local MP:

>>Dear Julian Huppart,
>> I am writing to you on behalf of a friend of mine, who received a NOTICE
>> of POSSESSION for an amount totalling £98 of arrears.
>> This is less than ONE WEEK'S rent.
>> Surely the council cannot evict someone with such a low level of arrears?
>> I was under the impression that the court will throw it out for less than
>> 2 month's arrears.
>> My Friend was saving up the money and, as in the past, has paid it in full
>> in lump sums.
>>
>> These letters from the council must have made a lot of vulnerable people,
>> some with anxiety and mental health problems, very worried, and would have
>> affected their health, just like it has done with my friend.
>>
>> This is something the council should be stopped from doing!
>> This threatening behavior will only increase the ill health of people
>> trying to cope on a low income and add to the workload at the GP's surgery, with
>> depression and pills for anxiety being prescribed.
>>
>> Regards

> Thank you very much for following this up with me.

> Attached is a selection showing two of the many persistent letters that the
> council have been issuing, her recent statements, and the Notice of Eviction
> for £98 on 13th October 2013.
> Admittedly, she is usually late in payment of her £16pw contributions since
> she saves up a few weeks and then goes to pay it, and I am aware that
> persistently late payment of rent can be a ground for eviction, many tenants
> would not be aware of that fact.
>
> My argument with the council though, is the fact that her rent is made up of
> her £16pw and the rent benefit of £93.71 which she receives as a benefit
> claimant.
> Surely to be in arrears of sufficiency for a Notice of Eviction it would
> require the benefit also not being paid. i.e. to be truly 2 months in
> arrears.
>
> It seems the council are taking the opinion that her contribution of £16pw,
> when 2 months behind, puts her 2 months in arrears - which is clearly not
> the case.
> Surely she needs to be around £880 in arrears before the council should
> issue an eviction notice.
>
> Do you see my point here? What is your opinion ?
>
> I realise that tenants need a reminder and it is good not to let them fall
> too far behind, but from her account anyone can see that she pays in lump
> sums.
> You can see that they are threatening to repossess her home of over 20
> years, on the basis of £20 arrears on the 3rd Dec, since, they say, may breach
> a condition of her tenancy.
>
> Incidentally, when I used to accept HB claimants, which I now discriminate
> against due to the council's rules for rent payment, I used to regulary
> receive the housing benefit from the council 4 weeks in arrears.
>

>Subject: Re: Fwd: From the Office of Julian Huppert MP for Cambridge From: "Andrew Latchem"
Date: 17/01/2014 14:03
To: "Julian Huppert MP"
Dear Julia, I have been forwarded your email concerning a constituent served with an eviction notice for £96.
I can offer the following Policy and practice guidance but would like to know the address of the constituent so I can follow through the concern and assess our procedures.. "The Council takes a preventative approach to rent arrears by contacting tenants when rent arrears are quite low.
We will send letters and /or telephone when one instalment is missed - this could be one week's rent say £100 or a missed monthly monthly payment, say £400.
If there is no response or payment at level one stage then a warning Notice of Seeking Possession would be served - this could be after say 3 weeks owing say £300.
The tenant then has four weeks to clear the account or make contact.
We spend the four weeks warning period again writing to the tenant and visiting if necessary.
If no response or payment then at say £700 or 7 weeks owing we may apply to court for a Possession Hearing - this may take say 4 further weeks and so a court hearing might typically be at the stage of a tenant owing 11 weeks or £1,100.
If the tenant has refused to pay or failed to respond then we will ask for an Eviction Order - the court may suspend this.
And so an actual "eviction" notice may be at the £1,100 or higher stage.
A Notice of possession is at a lower stage say £300 or higher. If the rent is lower per week then action may be taken at a lower amount".
I hope this assists but if you require further clarification please contact me.
Andrew Latchem Area Housing Manager City Homes 01223 458402

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "22/02/2014 - 10:43":

Jeremy,

This is typical of the 'caring Social Landlord' approach of Councils.

They're quick to take a tenant off us who is in arrears without taking a reference from us in the PRS and have no interest in behaving fairly or commercially but the minute one of their tenants is in arrears even when it may be the councils fault they send letters with menaces.

They are not competent commercially to run such substantial property portfolios, Councils are the only place where longevity rather than ability can lead you to substantial responsibilities and wages commensurate with those.

In Hull we have substantial amounts of Council staff earning £50k plus whilst the City loses money hand over fist, many of these 'manager' would be unemployable in the commercial world.

Reply to the comment left by "steve middletton" at "22/02/2014 - 14:02":

It reminds me of the fact that people get promoted to their highest level of incompetence,

i.e. every time they do well in their job they get a promotion, until they get to a level where they don't cope very well, so they get left there to do a poor job, since they can't really demote them back to the job they were good at !!

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "22/02/2014 - 15:07":

Ha ha, excellent analogy.

In my experience they go on long term sick often on full pay or usually get paid a severance package no commercial business could afford.

I keep telling my fellow Landlords that with the new 1 month and then pay Council Tax rules we are one of Hull CC's biggest tax payers and we should be taking a more active interest in the abilities of the many employees now funded by the extra £2.5m per annum tax the PRS in Hull now pays.

Reply to the comment left by "steve middletton" at "22/02/2014 - 15:27":

Is there any such thing as a Board of Governors for the council, to keep an eye on how it is run, a bit like the Board of Governors you get for a school ?
If there is, we should get more landlords onto them.

Who does oversee how the council runs? apart from elected political candidates, who else is there to influence the rules and regulations which they dream up ?

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "22/02/2014 - 20:44":

You make a good point. I have made a formal complaint but not had a reply yet. Will post it when received.

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "22/02/2014 - 20:44":

Yes there are scrutiny and fair value committees however Hull CC ditched these 4 years ago so basically they can squander money at will.

I have asked for an explanation on this and to date I am still waiting, Hull CC have a policy of spending multi millions of public money on clearing land/buying defunct properties and then 'gifting them' to private developers who somehow develop them and sell them for a very low profit.

We believe Disney may be substantially involved in the process, if not the fairy tale of who makes the profit is hard to explain!!

I was going to suggest complaining to the communities minister but that is Pickles and he is a total pratt, actually he is worse than that but maybe best not to say that hete, but i am sure you get the gist.