Rent Dodgers Beware

tbs624

mlz1413 wrote: »

...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.

LLs can still make application for the rent to be paid directly if the LL can show that the T has not/is not paying & arrears are accruing.

alenax

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.

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.

Sorry but I have to say, too many people didn't really read the article properly I don't think. The LA said this is absolutely a last resort for people that just point blank refuse to pay the rent and offer any sort of explanation or communication, I don't think they do it as soon as the rent is a day late, and I do think that people who play the system should be shamed into paying their rent.

mlz1413

tbs624 wrote: »

LLs can still make application for the rent to be paid directly if the LL can show that the T has not/is not paying & arrears are accruing.

So the LL has to be owed money before being able to apply for direct payment and then is still owed the arrears.


What happens if the T moves on? Goes to next LL spends 8 weeks rent before new LL can apply for direct payments. T moves on again gets 8 weeks rent to spend before next LL apply etc etc.

tbs624

alenax wrote: »

Sorry but I have to say, too many people didn't really read the article properly I don't think. The LA said this is absolutely a last resort for people that just point blank refuse to pay the rent and offer any sort of explanation or communication, ..

Perhaps *you* don't read or understand other people's posts properly and jump to the wrong
conclusion ?;) The thread moves on to whether such action should be more widely applicable. I fully registered what the LL/LA in the report had apparently said but the LL *has* to use the due process of the law to evict a T for non-payment rather than effectively harassing him/her out of the property. It doesn't matter whether the LA/LL slaps a board up after two days or after two months, IMO it's still inappropriate.

As for any other business, a LL has to build the risk of unpaid rent into his business plan. The fact is that Ts who can't face up to their debts and/or use their LHA for something else other than their rent aren't *all* doing it because they're wrong-uns.

alenax wrote: »

I don't think they do it as soon as the rent is a day late, and I do think that people who play the system should be shamed into paying their rent.

So who decides who is "playing the system" ? You? Me? An LA with a couple of GCSEs in art & typing studies & a distinct lack of knowledge of LL&T law? A LL who is content to whack his rent up to the top LHA rate to maximise his profits at the state's expense & may be falling short in his own legal obligations?

How about your views on LLs who play the system, in other ways? Bit of tax evasion, spot of illicit tenancy deposit retention? Disrepair? No gas safety cert? What about a return to the stocks? Go and pelt them with tomatoes & eggs?

mlz1413

[QUOTE=tbs624;23199527.How_about_your_views_on_LLs_who_play_the_system,_in_other_ways?_Bit_of_tax_evasion,_spot_of_illicit_tenancy_deposit_retention?_Disrepair?_No_gas_safety_cert?_What_about_a_return_to_the_stocks?_Go_and_pelt_them_with_tomatoes_&_eggs?[/QUOTE]

Oohh that could be good for every £10 owed LL gets a tomato thrown for every £500 a raw egg is added!

tbs624

mlz1413 wrote: »

What happens if the T moves on? Goes to next LL spends 8 weeks rent before new LL can apply for direct payments. T moves on again gets 8 weeks rent to spend before next LL apply etc etc.

I have said in another thread that IMO any T who persistently & deliberately fails to make rent payments should not be able to claim LHA payable to them personally for any future tenancy. If the scenario that you describe above happens its because those new LLs do not have appropriate referencing procedures in place. See Clutton's posts and those of Socrates on that issue.

The thing is that when HB was paid direct to LLs , some of them were making a bigger killing on benefit-covered tenanted properties at the cheap end of the market than they were with some higher-end properties let to working "professionals" (some of whom who also like to flit now and again without clearing their debts), but the risks involved have to be allowed for.

I think its unfortunate that two separate issues get squeezed together - perhaps some of it is about Daily Mail views, with the general populace being able to dictate who deserves their benefit and how much control there should be over what the claimant actually spends it on whilst being totally unaware of the reality of life for other sectors of the community?

I really don't know how the system could be improved but, no, definitely not via placards placed by LAs & LLs.

Jowo_2

charliee wrote: »

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

Again, I want to emphasise that the practice of shaming notices is fundamentally the wrong way to go about things but its a simplistic notion that you can evict tenants after 2 months arrears or get the rent then paid to the landlord. It's also not a remedy to preventing it in the first place.

Firstly, some landlords still endure a big battle to get payments made direct to them after 2 months because the LA is incompetent. Secondly, the 2 months rent arrears can never get repaid - it's always lost because the tenant has no income in which to repay it. Thirdly, the failure to respect the tenancy agreement in terms of paying the rent with LHA can also means a lack of respect in other areas of tenant behaviour - keeping the property clean and undamaged, facilitating repairs, anti-social behaviour.

Notionally, a landlord can evict a tenant when 2 months rent is owing at the time the notice is served AND at the time of the court case but some tenants (the can pay/wont pay ones) will just pay it down to just under 2 months to thwart the possession notice.

It can take a few months for the case to come to court and a few more months to get the bailiffs in if they don't move (by this time the arrears are heading to the 6th month mark). Then when the tenants are finally out and the place is a mess, it can take a lot of time and expense to remedy it ready for the next tenants.

The above is a worse case scenario but can and does happen which is why some landlords will simply not rent to risky groups of tenants because even the best screening in the world can't prevent it from happening.

mchale

What a waste of nails & screws, shud have hung the tenants from front of house :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

robpw2

this story is old hat i replied to this same thing early last year ..

tbs624

Jowo wrote: »

... its a simplistic notion that you can evict tenants after 2 months arrears or get the rent then paid to the landlord.

Obtaining a Court Order is the route that the law insists upon if a LL wishes to repossess his/her property - whether it takes longer than a LL thinks it should does not give them or the LA the right to harass a tenant by slapping placards on the property

Jowo wrote: »

...some landlords still endure a big battle to get payments made direct to them after 2 months because the LA is incompetent...

So choose your LA more carefully - that failing has got little to do with what we're talking about here. LL as hapless "victim" of nasty T and sloppy LA?

Jowo wrote: »

.Notionally, a landlord can evict a tenant when 2 months rent is owing at the time the notice is served AND at the time of the court case but some tenants (the can pay/wont pay ones) will just pay it down to just under 2 months to thwart the possession notice.

They will be advised to do so : its standard practice amongst housing lawyers & tenancy advice workers because the law allows for it.

No different really from the dodgy LLs who fail to register those tenancy deposits within the 14 days limit supposedly required by law but then manage to get straight online to do so as soon as they get a court hearing date for failing to comply with the Housing Act, in the hope of thwarting a claim for 3x the tenancy deposit, surely?

Jowo wrote: »

.The above is a worse case scenario but can and does happen which is why some landlords will simply not rent to risky groups of tenants because even the best screening in the world can't prevent it from happening.

Many LLs manage to do very well out of the system so its pretty clear that the more professional experienced LLs find a way to keep the risk to a manageable level.