Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill

Reply to the comment left by Gary Nock at 31/10/2017 - 22:33
Oh Gary, so very, very wrong on all counts.

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 01/11/2017 - 20:35
Hi Giles,
as your in touch with Karen do you think you could bring to her attension the kinds of things 'rogue tenants' can do with limited redress from landlords? I wont list them as I am sure you can probably think of more than even I!

Reply to the comment left by Tobias Nightingale at 02/11/2017 - 12:55
I can’t think of any for which there is not already a legal recourse for the landlord. What do you have in mind?

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 02/11/2017 - 18:02
Well here are 2 that spring to mind. Perhaps reform housing benefit/ Universal credit so that if a tenant claiming either of them does not hand the rent over that could should be considered benefit fraud. As it seems to me if doing what is termed 'cash in hand' undeclared work while on jsa is fraud so to should be not handing over the rent as that could be considerably more (especially if it came to the entire length of eviction process).
3 Make it so rent arrears of 2 months at the time of notice compulsory ground for eviction as some tenants pay just enough to be below 2 months so the eviction process has to be thrown out.
2 Make it a criminal offence to do deliberate extensive damage a landlords rental property Ie smashing windows /damaging boiler/pulling a door of its hinges and the like not petty things. As currently it is seen as a civil offence unlike if it was someones private home which would be seen as a criminal. And perhaps subject to proof (ie witnesses/fellow tenants a landlord should be able to evict quickly/immiedately rather than as now it could a long time in which more damage could happen. There are others but thats all for now.

Reply to the comment left by Tobias Nightingale at 02/11/2017 - 18:53
Tobias
1. a) Can't do that in a private members bill (can't touch money). b) Can't do that as it is tenant liability for the rent. The landlord has no direct relation to DWP. If there was, then you would have to repay any overpayments of tenant's HB/UC. Which I'm sure you wouldn't want. Fraud on DWP is not declaring income. Failing to pay the landlord money cannot be fraud on DWP if the tenant is entitled to that money. Why not actually lobby the Govt over proper direct payment arrangements for UC. Makes much more sense. Already direct payment arrangements for HB.
2. That is what grounds 10 and 11 are for.
3. It is criminal damage already, really it is. Your complaint is about the police, not legislation. It is also a civil breach of tenancy, for which damages and possession can be sought. Complaining about the speed of the court process (and believe me, we ALL do that) is a complaint about the funding and management of the courts. Legislation would make no difference.

So, there is already legal recourse and legislation about all these things. Your complaints are actually about the police not knowing the law in L&T situations (I completely agree. They are also hopeless on illegal eviction), about the crumbling court system (and I would join with you in that) and about the ridiculous stance taken by the DWP about direct payment of UC housing element (on which I would also join with you).

Hmm I have heard lots of stories where police say it is a civil matter not criminal. Also yes the tenants are entitled to the money but surely where then spend it anything other than rent must be punishable by some stick? I mean you could for the sake of argument have a tenant threaten a landlord into not evicting or another situation and rake in thousands and no sanction liable but if someone got far less doing undeclared work there would be. Do you know what karens opinion on direct payments to landlords is whether its housing benefit or UC?
Or does she have any sypathy for the plight of good landlords against the bad tenants? It seems there is hardly any parlimentarian that thinks stronger safeguards against bad tenants is needed. Eg the 2 months is far to long if its a tenant can easily make payment and makes no account of the actual rent charged. An extreme example but you could have a working tenant with 0.01 pence a week and would still have to wait 8 weeks.

Reply to the comment left by Tobias Nightingale at 02/11/2017 - 21:48
I'm sure the police say that. I'm sure they say it often. In the same way that they always say illegal eviction is a civil matter (it is an arrestable criminal offence). The police are wrong when they say that. Complain to the chief constable.

A tenant who doesn't pay the rent is 'punishable' as far as the landlord is concerned by possession proceedings and a money claim, whether they get HB/UC housing or not. They will then be intentionally homeless. I don't see why the landlord not getting their money means the the tenant can be said to commit benefit fraud.

I can't speak for Karen generally, but I do know she is horrified at the current position on UC, including the absence of direct payments to landlords.

And on the two months 'if the tenant can easily make payment' - you don't get to decide that, the court does. So legislation wouldn't make any difference. A surprising number of landlords lie about arrears (or can't produce rent accounts) in court proceedings. So it doesn't get to be on your say so. You can, of course, make a claim for possession after one month missed rent, just not on ground 8.

I wish I had known the police lie! When one of my tenants did 3K damage to a house the police told me categorically, on two separate occasions, that it was a civil matter. I managed to move them out on a S21. I felt I had zero chance of getting any money out of them for the repairs, so S21 was the most sensible route. My priority (and the priority for the neighbours, who had put up with a lot of grief, which the police were also useless about) was to regain possession of the house. Going to court and being awarded a fiver a week for years would have been pointless. I also know that the tenants lied to the council, Shelter and two private landlords (who telephoned me for a reference), saying I had evicted them because I wanted to sell the house. They made no mention of the 3 thousand pounds of damage! I think it would be immensely helpful if politicians would invite landlords, tenants, councils and Shelter to round table discussions to discuss the true trials and tribulations for all concerned. This attitude of 'all landlords are nasty, all tenants are hard done by' is facile, divisive and deeply unhelpful.

Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 03/11/2017 - 14:15
I don't think the police lie, I think they just don't know the law (and are unwilling to get involved).

And there are plenty of discussions like that. Shelter, RLA, NLA, DCLG and LGA talk all the time.

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 03/11/2017 - 17:24
If they talk all the time ireally does seem goverments have not listned to the RLA/NLA all that much over they years. They have dont next to nothing to help landlords (deregulation act for eg) just things could be even worse is what could be said is the 'help' Compare that over the years more and more provisions against 'rogue' landlords such as last years housing act when there already were penalties'