Rent Dodgers Beware

Jowo_2

Despite my aversion to the practice of humiliating tenants that have squandered their housing benefit rather than paying their rent with it, this link made me chuckle.

It was posted on a thread similar to this as the 'rent dodger' signs first originated late last year in Liverpool. In Spain, there is a company that sends round debt collectors in costumes, such as a top hat and tails with their debt collecting profession in big letters on a suitcase

""We don't prey on cash-strapped individuals. We are dealing with professional debtors who know all the tricks and who can pay but don't."

"We recently had the case of a very wealthy couple who did not pay the €60,000 [£48,000] bill for a wedding banquet," he says. "The wedding company contacted us, we got a guest-list and started phoning up the guests one by one, saying they would be individually responsible for all the lobsters and chicken they had eaten. Eventually, the shame-faced couple paid up."

El Cobrador de Frac, set up 20 years ago, has 550 staff and many imitators. Other collectors dress up as clowns, monks, bull-fighters or masked swordsmen. One always works with his dog and attributes his high success rate to the barking that accompanies his visits. Another plays the bagpipes until payment is received.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/boom-time-for-spains-costumed-debt-collectors-922500.html?ref=patrick.net

tbs624

I'm going to go against the flow on this one guys - I think it's appalling.

I'm absolutely not in way condoning Ts who choose not to pay their rent but in amongst the " I'm going to spend it on baccy, beer & women" brigade are those who are in *genuine* serious financial hardship. Yes, people should always prioritise their rent payments but using such a method to stigmatise those who fall behind with their rent, or who fail to pay up for whatever reason, turns my stomach, it really does.

It's tantamount to tenant harassment. How can it be right for LLs or LAs to disclose information about a tenant's finances to all & sundry? Some of these tenants will have kids - imagine how it feels for a struggling single parent to see those signs and be worrying whether the next one will be on their home?

I'm pretty sure that many of the tenants who post on here could think of a few placards they'd like to display in their windows to let everyone know how their errant LLs behave.

Tenants of LLs who fail to register their tenancy deposits displaying big placards reading " a LL who breaks the law owns this property" or " my LL defaulted on his mortgage, even though I have always paid my rent on time"

Should HMRC take to sticking placards up when people get into difficulties with their taxes?


Bit late paying your phone bill? Let BT dangle a placard from the cable leading to your house.......

And just don't get me started on LAs..................................." this LA robs people blind and lies through his teeth"

God help us if people like these Scottish LLs are classed as "fit and proper" under LL registration when this is how they behave. Why stop there - debtor's prison, preferably for the whole family ? Prison hulk on the River Tay? Transportation?

There are some LLs who , under the old HB system, effectively had a "cash cow". They didn't let to DSS tenants out of any sense of philanthropy - they let because there was a guaranteed rent there with many Ts who didn't have the first clue about what was acceptable in terms of repairs, maintenance etc and it was easier and cheaper to buy up properties for that sector of the rental market.

The LHA system is far from perfect, and yes Ts should pay their rent on time but this is wrong - very wrong -morally and legally: in addition to any LL harassment which is likely to make a T give up his/her tenancy , harassing a debtor is a criminal act under the Admin of Justice Act.

charliee_3

as much as it galls me (there are too many people who feel they are entitled to just take take take) it seems that there are laws against this:

The Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40 makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor's agent (often a debt collection agency) to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing 'alarm, distress or humiliation, because of their frequency or publicity or manner'.

grrrrr....

i dont know why the LA didnt just evict them through the normal manner after 2 months rent arrears...

Gingernutmeg

If this is 'allowed' to happen, then I want the right to put a great big sign up on the shops some of the Letting Agents I've rented from, and the houses of some of the Landlords. 'Stole a rental deposit' would be one, 'Criminally negligent' would be another, along with 'Habitual Liar'. I'd have an absolute field day.

devils_advocate

as much as it galls me (there are too many people who feel they are entitled to just take take take) it seems that there are laws against this:
Quote:
The Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40 makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor's agent (often a debt collection agency) to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing 'alarm, distress or humiliation, because of their frequency or publicity or manner'.

This doesn't apply. See Administration of Justice Act s54 (5), which states...
" Except insofar as it amends, or authorises the amendment of, any enactment which extends to Scotland, this Act shall not extend to Scotland."

tek-monkey

tbs624 wrote: »

I'm going to go against the flow on this one guys - I think it's appalling.

I'm absolutely not in way condoning Ts who choose not to pay their rent but in amongst the " I'm going to spend it on baccy, beer & women" brigade are those who are in *genuine* serious financial hardship. Yes, people should always prioritise their rent payments but using such a method to stigmatise those who fall behind with their rent, or who fail to pay up for whatever reason, turns my stomach, it really does........

I thought they said they only did it if tennants also refused to communicate with them? Falling behind with bills is easy enough, but if you talk to them it wont happen. Refuse to answer calls or open the door, then it happens. Maybe this will make more people face up to their debt rather than hiding and hoping it goes away?

Also, if the LA just paid it straigh to the LL again, this couldn't happen and everyone would be stress free as far as their rent is concerned.

tbs624

devils_advocate wrote: »

This doesn't apply. See Administration of Justice Act s54 (5), which states...
" Except insofar as it amends, or authorises the amendment of, any enactment which extends to Scotland, this Act shall not extend to Scotland."

If you look further back in the thread you'll see it mentioned that LLs/LAs acting in this way was first highlighted in Liverpool a year or so ago. As it's a wider discussion than Scotland, and some of those who have posted in the thread are not in Scotland and seem to agree that the practice should become more widespread, the provisions of the AoJA are relevant.

mlz1413

I have no problem with the signs as long as it is a last resort and for those 'stealing' the rent rather than just paying the creditor who shouts the loudest.

But I also agree with Gingernut that the same should be able to happen to LA, then agents such as rentapad would not be able to fleece dozens if not hundreds of tenants.

But surely the LHA benefit needs to be better set up for dealing with non payers. I can see why payments were changed as previously LL's were open to T fraud - as in if a T claimed HB wrongly but it was paid direct to the LL then the LL had to pay it back and sue the T for unpaid rent.

But if now it is paid to the T for payment onto the LL and the T doesn't pay when does the T stop getting LHA direct? When are they made to pay the string of LL's owed money?

I can't imagine any LHA saying to a T as you have not paid the LL for 8 weeks you won't be getting a penny in benefits for 8 weeks so that we can forward the LL their money and we pay them directly from now on.

alenax

Sounds fair to me.

tbs624

tek-monkey wrote: »

I thought they said they only did it if tennants also refused to communicate with them? Falling behind with bills is easy enough, but if you talk to them it wont happen. Refuse to answer calls or open the door, then it happens. Maybe this will make more people face up to their debt rather than hiding and hoping it goes away?...

Yes, Ts should communicate with their LLs as soon as they realise that they are going to have problems meeting their contractual obligations, but do you really think that once this had become seen as an acceptable way of dealing with a debtor that it wouldn't get widened out to include *all* Ts who weren't paying on time? Why bother with the cost & time of going through the proper court procedure to evict for non-payment/persistent late payment when you can just ridicule & shame your problematic T into leaving?

Have a look at the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 -

1 Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier

(1)In this section “residential occupier”, in relation to any premises, means a person occupying the premises as a residence, whether under a contract or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of any other person to recover possession of the premises.

(2)If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises.

(3)If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises—

(a)to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof; or
(b)to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof;
does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Before anyone else comes back with this bit:

(3A)Subject to subsection (3B) below, the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or
(b)he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,

and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.
(3B)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) above if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or withholding the services in question
(My highlighting).

I'll add that there are , IMO, *no* reasonable grounds for slapping up public notices on a T's home ( because that is how they are legally entitled to view it, even if in rent arrears, until they are evicted by court order). If it's all too painful for a LL to cope with , then they should sell up and do something else instead.Corner shop? Bar in Costa del somewhere?

tek-monkey wrote: »

Also, if the LA just paid it straigh to the LL again, this couldn't happen and everyone would be stress free as far as their rent is concerned.

Can you clarify - do you mean the Local Authority? ( checking as LA on here tends to mean Letting Agent) If you do, then let's extrapolate that one - why give benefit claimants any money at all - just pay Farm Foods, Netto, Lidl et al direct for a set amount of food, & pay the utility companies a set amount for gas/elec because clearly these people should not ever *learn* to be in control of their finances? Don't even trust them with tokens and coupons because, hell, they may even trade *those* in for something we don't approve of?

The LL is not the claimant, the T is. If the LL wants to profit by operating in this end of the private sector rentals market then s/he *has* to take the risks that go hand in hand with that and use the court system when things go belly up.

I get tired of hearing that bleat "if it wasn't for us, there wouldn't be homes for these people" - we all know that there is a woeful lack of social housing ( bless you Thatcher) , but many such LLs have managed to build up a very profitable rental business, so maybe Ts should be trotting around saying "if it wasn't for us these people wouldn't be able to shop at Waitrose, have good holidays, and a good pension pot to look forward to" . If LLs don't like the risks they can always try letting their properties out to working tenants: I would hazard a guess that many of them will be looking at extensive void periods.

Some of the posters on here have clearly never worked amongst people ( especially families) whose lives aren't all strawberries, Pimms and 3 holidays a year.