The cost of bad eviction advice by councils

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Betton" at "15/09/2016 - 11:21":

Sharon I am not conversant with all the legal obligations of councils when a person is intentionally homeless but from a moral perspective I believe that intentionally homeless people should not be given any assistance at all, not even temporary accommodation.

Osborne and his cohorts have made me hard as nails with respect to DSS tenants. Behave or be homeless.

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "15/09/2016 - 12:39":

I think I am quite conversant with the Councils obligations, having worked for a council for years. My stance was always to make sure prospective homeless people were aware of the 5 hoops Governments and councils wanted applicants to jump through - I was usually then, and always now, am on the landlords side.
I know what you mean about the morality of the situation, but not offering any temporary accommodation raises the spectre of yet more street homeless. Believe me, in the North West, temporary accommodation is not a nice hotel. It is a hostel and not pleasant.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain Garcin" at "15/09/2016 - 12:24":

Oliver,
I would expect Homeless Officer to investigate, but rent arrears almost always can be put at some failure on the part of the tenant - failure to pay rent, failure to sign on, failure to complete paperwork or on-line claim. For the exceptions where there is a genuine reason, then allowances should be made - but how many of them will there be?

Reply to the comment left by "Romain Garcin" at "15/09/2016 - 08:35":

Or maybe from the tenancy end date on a properly served Section 21 unless the tenant applies to the Court. This should take huge amounts of pressure off the Courts and LLs as well as significantly reduced and unjustifiable losses.

Perhaps it could even pave the way for LLs to take the Councils to court to recoup losses encountered as a result of failing to resolve the tenants' housing needs (where it can be proved) within the timescale prescribed under the Housing Act?

Reply to the comment left by "Scott Davison" at "14/09/2016 - 16:00":

A while ago, I started a thread on LHA and its misappropriation by some in receipt of it.

https://www.property118.com/spade-ever-going-called-spade-misappropriate-public-funds/72696/

My understanding is that if a Tenant is evicted for non payment of rent he/she is deemed to have deliberately made themselves homeless , and the council has no obligation to house them unless they have children. So the main issue for the councils is presumably having access to hostel accommodation. The problem could be addressed if rents were paid directly to the landlord, and if that was done it might be accompanied by the requirement to allow regular council inspections to ensure that the landlords responsibility to provide adequate accommodation are met. It would also , perhaps, put a stop to the problem that occurred in the past when this direct payment was the norm of crooked landlords continuing to receive payments after tenants had left. The problem of Councils telling tenants to stay put isn't a new one. I had it on a property I owned in Penzance twenty years ago. The press and MP's get themselves in a frenzy about landlords and housing benefits , ignoring the inconvenient truth that if it wasn't for these private landlords the homeless would be numbered in the millions, and that there are a good number of crooked tenants out there as well.

Reply to the comment left by "Tony White" at "16/09/2016 - 13:57":

This may be a local issue but I have to disagree with you on some of the points you made. We have had personal experiences (yes multiple) where Basingstoke & Deane BC's Housing Services have rehoused tenants who have been helped to secretly abscond owing us thousands of pounds even after managing to intercept LHA due to the tenants being over 2 months in arrears. These tenants are usually placed with unsuspecting private LLs without declaring their poor payment history with the previous LL. No doubt, history then repeats itself all over again.

Just because a LL is paid directly doesn't mean LHA is always paid. Some instances we have personally experienced where arrears have accrued despite being in direct receipt of a tenant's LHA are a) claim forms not completed on time, b) requested evidence to support a claim not being provided c) tenants not declaring income, d) over-paid LHA resulting in claw back, e) a tenant only being entitled to partial LHA funding and not making up the difference, f) fraudulent claims e.g. not living alone or letting a room undeclared. The list goes on......

There is no perfect solution but it is time that Councils need to be held accountable for aiding and abetting. Also it is time for them to stop hiding behind that old chestnut of "we can't tell you the tenant's forwarding address due to Data Protection". If this requires a change in the law to protect 'theft' (I use the term loosely as apparently it is not 'theft' it is 'civil'), then so be it.

While I welcome Bob Blackman's bill, and I don't like housing departments telling people they can't help them until they're evicted, in many cases councils are taking this position because they simply have nowhere to put these people.

If the bill is made law, where is the accommodation (by which I also mean grotty bed and breakfast "hotels", and not just proper housing) supposed to come from? I appreciate there's more housing capacity away from the SE, but this isn't infinite and even if vulnerable and disadvantaged people can be housed in other areas, it then puts a burden on the host communities which not only have to house these incomers, but provide healthcare and schooling etc and in some cases deal with challenging behaviour from those who are unable to contribute much in return (through poverty, lack of education or vulnerability).

Councils are going to need private landlords even more, because realistically, where else is the housing coming from? However, as Rosalind has commented, I doubt many councils will be waking up to this fact any time soon.

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "16/09/2016 - 15:41":

(by which I also mean grotty bed and breakfast “hotels”, and not just proper housing)
I have seen some of these bed and breakfast “hotels”, and they are a disgrace. Why are hoteliers allowed to provide sub-standard accommodation while landlords are expected to meet a high defined standard for a far lower reward?

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "16/09/2016 - 16:36":

My thoughts exactly. It seems standards fly out the window when desperation takes over. I actually know some people who own one of these "hotels" (I can't identify the hotel or them for obvious reasons).

They own the place outright, which at least initially, also took regular guests. Since they took the hotel over, it has received the worst reviews on Tripadviser I've ever read (e.g. bedroom doors that can't lock, dirt, filth, bedding apparently not changed between guests, etc).

These people are also the landlords of at least one property let under an AST, and I know of at least two legal obligations they haven't complied with, as well as a history of serious arrears with service charge payments to the freeholder of that property.