Fraud by landlord?

tsstss7

Although I have to say the earier point about benefit claimant's becoming concentrated in cheaper area's is valid - I wonder to what an extent this will influence the rental market in future years.

PayDay

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

Hey Clutton...I think I was at that same meeting!

I remember very well the look on the councillors face(s) when that LL said he'd put rents up to cover the LL licensing [strike]rip-off[/strike] charge. It really brought it home to me the fact that councillors, along with most of the rest of the population (it seems) think we are all filthy rich with bottomless pits of cash ready to be milked by the next bit of spurious legislation that they can come up with. I think at that point, even the councillors realised what a bluddy big can of worms the LL licensing is/will be. Rents will HAVE to go up to cover it..I don't think anyone thought of that when they were cobbling it all together.

To the OP; any LL with any sense will find out what the current rate is for his property and pitch the rent accordingly. (if the LL is willing to take on tenants in receipt of LHA that is...)

Some LLs will get no choice as to whether to take on LHA. There are plenty of LLs like me who have had properties a while and can keep our rents low to attract the working tenants.

kunekune

Surely it is fraud. The landlord and the tenant together are misprepresenting the actual rent, in order to gain more LHA. Since the LL has 'arranged' the deal with the tenant, the LL is liable. The tenant is probably also liable, as they have failed to tell the truth. The rest of the discussion is way off topic.

tsstss7

KK the point I was trying to make is that the LHA rate is fixed to a certain level whatever the rent UNLESS the rent is lower than LHA recieved by the CLAIMANT(By 15 /wk) so in this case the recipient of LHA has an enititlement of £750 WHATEVER her rent - so if she negotiates a discounted rent there should be no issue of fraud - the only person out of pocket here is the landlord (who inflated the rent initially anyway but then came to realise that he could not actually get this rent from current tenant and chooses to keep tenant rather than try for max LHA rent).

LL may have been able to gain max LHA for the house with a different tenant but it may well be that the house he is renting out doesn't attract/isn't really suitable for such tenants (say for example it is very small 3 bed which only gets max LHA for a single parent/couple with older children of different sexes or 3 or more of one sex).

Bungarm2001

The fact there there is a limit on what the tenant is allowed to keep (if the circumstances were right) from the LHA payment i.e. £15, prevents any fraud by either the tenant or the LL I would have thought.

If the LHA set the average rent for a particular type of property at £500 a month, and with all things being equal the tenant was given £500 LHA and the LL had already set their rent required at £500 then where's the problem/fraud? Even if the LL had actually raised his rent to match the LHA average rent for that area, I can't see any problem.

The tenant and LL certainly don't get together and work out what they are going to get as LHA payments if that is what people are saying..they are set already by the rent officers who are responsible for the rent/LHA levels before anyone even applies.

Again, if the LHA set the average rent for a particular type of property at £500, AND the tenant was entitled to £500 LHA and if the LL wanted only £485 and was happy with that, the tenant is legally allowed to keep the £15, then where's the problem/fraud?

Once more, if the LHA set the average rent for a particular type of property at £500, the tenant was entitled to £500 LHA but the LL wanted £515 AND the tenant was happy to pay the £15 top-up, where is the problem/fraud??

This thread is doing my head in

tsstss7

my point exactly - there is no fraud in this imho! Just good negotiating on the part of the tenant.

clutton_2

"" This thread is doing my head in" - i'm glad its not just me !!

kunekune

But now I am confused - and I didn't think I was before. I still think there is more to it than good negotiating. The OP said that the LL and tenant told the LHA the rent was higher than it actually was, so that she didn't have to pay any top up.

My initial assumption was that this must be because the tenant was entitled to a percentage of the rent and if they said it was lower, the tenant would still not receive the full amount. I think this is how most people saw it.

Are you saying that the LL might THINK he is getting one over the system by saying the rent is x when it is really less than x, but in fact the tenant would have received exactly the same if the documents had stated the correct rent?

In terms of ordinary criminal law, that's quite an interesting scenario. Under the old law, that would be probably be attempted obtaining by deception. The LL would either be the principal offender or a secondary party, depending on the precise details - they appear to be in it together.

Under the current law, believe it or not, provided the LL (and maybe the tenant) was "dishonest", it could actually be fraud even though they didn't gain anything, they just had to have the intent to gain. Fraud is a conduct crime rather than a result crime, so you don't have to succeed with your complex plan. What's intended does have to be a financial gain, but that might be found just by the tenant staying and continuing to pay rent. It would be a jury question whether this kind of arrangement was dishonest, obviously, but I'd imagine there's a reasonable chance an ordinary person would think this was a dishonest lie.

tsstss7

kunekune wrote: »

But now I am confused - and I didn't think I was before. I still think there is more to it than good negotiating. The OP said that the LL and tenant told the LHA the rent was higher than it actually was, so that she didn't have to pay any top up.

My initial assumption was that this must be because the tenant was entitled to a percentage of the rent and if they said it was lower, the tenant would still not receive the full amount. I think this is how most people saw it.

Are you saying that the LL might THINK he is getting one over the system by saying the rent is x when it is really less than x, but in fact the tenant would have received exactly the same if the documents had stated the correct rent?

In terms of ordinary criminal law, that's quite an interesting scenario. Under the old law, that would be probably be attempted obtaining by deception. The LL would either be the principal offender or a secondary party, depending on the precise details - they appear to be in it together.

Under the current law, believe it or not, provided the LL (and maybe the tenant) was "dishonest", it could actually be fraud even though they didn't gain anything, they just had to have the intent to gain. Fraud is a conduct crime rather than a result crime, so you don't have to succeed with your complex plan. What's intended does have to be a financial gain, but that might be found just by the tenant staying and continuing to pay rent. It would be a jury question whether this kind of arrangement was dishonest, obviously, but I'd imagine there's a reasonable chance an ordinary person would think this was a dishonest lie.

sorry - mega confued now lololol and lost the plot a bit too.....:D

so you are saying that even though the LL and tenant are not profitting from lying to HB that they could still be done for fraud...easy answer there really the LL or TENANT should tell HB of rent amendment....then everyone is happy :j

mel19632

Thank you for all your replies - I did state at the beginning that I DON'T know how LHA is calculated - therefore I don't know if it is fraud.

My worry was that LHA was based on a maximum of number of rooms required, income received and the level of rent (i.e. it would be capped at level of rent with the exception of £15).

If this is not fraud by tenant/LL then that is excellent news, however it all sounded a bit fishy to me which is why I was asking!!

Surely there must be a reason for the LL to put the rent up to LHA (I know it "claims" to be market rate, but I know first hand it isn't always the case! In my area the LHA is about £120 above what I would rent my property out for in that area), but then allow the tenant to pay less.

I assumed that the LL was the one in the wrong because potentially he was getting/letting his tenant claim more LHA than they were entitled to because the rent was lower that the council thought?

And to all of you who "this thread is doing their head in" - dont read it!! If you don't understand my question, then I would rather just read all of the excellent advice and comments from those who do!

Kunekune seems to be along my wavelength - this is what I am trying to establish.

Also real1314, I am in fact a LL and rent to HB tenants of my own. I would hardly call myself a LL basher....

I just think the situation stinks of something - however, if I am mistaken I will gladly be corrected. I do not in fact know the LL personally, it is a rumour I have heard.