Rent Dodgers Beware

silvercar

The difference between paying a landlord direct and issueing food vouchers is that HB/ LHA is a payment made solely for the purpose of paying rent. All other benefits are for general living costs and recipients can choose how to spend.

If a tenant is given a benefit solely for the purpose of paying rent, then that is what it should be used for.

Nosht

Just the same as T.V. Licencing circulating streets where unpaid licence dodgers live.

N.

alenax

tbs624 wrote: »

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.

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?

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude and by the time I submitted that post, there was another one from you.

Fundamentally, I agree that we shouldn't go back to the Dark Ages when people break the law, but at the same time I'm still not against the idea of shaming notices. It can be subjective as to whether someone is playing the system or not, but I can't think of any other explanation for not paying the rent and avoiding all contact with the LA/LL at all costs. If someone has genuine financial difficulties then I have sympathy for them, but I can't stand people that decide to screw over other people for no good reason at all, and I do think they should be named and shamed.

tbs624

alenax wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude and by the time I submitted that post, there was another one from you.

Not taken as rude - it's only a internet forum and it's easy for any of us to pick up a different meaning from that which is actually intended

Snooze

Too much namby-pamby stuff going on with rentals these days. They should cut all the BS and have it written in law that if you're 1 month late with your rent you get an official warning giving you 30 days to settle the arrears or you will be turfed out. The fact that you've got 3 kids and your 90 year old mother living with you is irrelevant. You signed an agreement saying you'd pay £x on x date every month so if you can no longer pay it then that's your problem - you've got 1 month to find somewhere you can afford (and that's plenty long enough) otherwise you'd better get some cardboard boxes ready as you'll be needing them to sleep in.

Pay the rent or gtfo. Simples.

Rob

Fire_Fox

Is it not benefit fraud to claim money specifically for the purposes of paying your rent and not actually pay the rent?