For all the benefit frothers out there

Pobby

Agree with the above. I really think that it has been seen, time and time again that the selling off of council homes was a disgrace. A lot of LA places built, many of them a short time after the war, would have paid for themselves many times over. It seems madness that the tax payer has to pick up a bill for so many housed in the private sector. I think of London as a prime example.

lemonjelly

Jowo wrote: »

No, the council hadn't taken any legal possession steps, they told my landlord friend that the local court generally didn't award possession back to the council when children were involved because of the Human Rights Act, rarely granting a Possession Order unless the council could demonstrate they'd done their best to rehouse them.

The council had served the tenant with adequate notice many months before the end of the lease but their poor admin or perhaps tenant intransigence meant that they did not offer onward accommodation to their tenant until after the property was supposed to be handed back and the tenant turned it down as unsuitable. (I imagine they had to bribe their nuisance tenant out of the property, rewarding her for ruining the fixtures, fittings and decor and aggravating the neighbours, as my friend was preparing to take the council to court for breaching the lease and it was escalated to the Head of Housing - that's my Daily Mail interpretation...).

Yes, the tenants were probably in receipt of Housing Benefit/LHA since it was operated by their temporary housing unit, therefore was probably used for interim/emergency accommodation for those they had a legal obligation to house, such as newly released prisoners, the homeless, victims of domestic abuse.

I'm wondering if this is a local phenomenon?
Having worked for more than 1 HA, I have been involved in, and aware of numerous cases where people with children have been evicted. Indeed, I have had to attend more than 1 eviction myself.

Dependent on the type of tenancy, there are certain mandatory grounds where a court has to legally grant a possession order. There generalkly are options for the tenant to suspend that order, but that is an aside, & there aren't guarantees that this course of action would be successful.

Provided the housing provider has followed its own procedure, I am at a loss to explain why a court wouldn't grant possession orders.

Sounds more like the LA didn't manage the tenancy...

lemonjelly

Jowo wrote: »

The HRA implications relate only to action performed by the local council against their tenants and is not applicable to private landlords - private landlords will always be given possession of the property on a mandatory basis by the judge if the S21 notice to quit or S8 is correctly served. Remember in this particular case, the council was actually the landlord - they were the ones who issued the AST to their own tenants.

My landlord friend took legal advice and it was verified that local authorities can struggle to evict council tenants on HRA grounds.

I am aware that the local council will tell tenants in private property owned by a private landlord who are served notice to ignore it until the landlord gets a possession order - this is part of their gatekeeping function to reduce demand on their services, namely that they won't act until the tenant is virtually homeless rather than when they are just initially served notice.

However, in this particular case, though the council's management and administration of the entire tenancy was abysmal, they would not have instructed the tenant to stay there as they are obligated by the lease to return the property with vacant possession, plus obligated by the law to find them onward accommodation. Basically, they were sloppy at regaining possession and rehousing her and the tenant essentially refused to budge. Perhaps they informed her that if she turned down another property without good reason, she would be considered to have made herself homeless should they bring it to court and the judge grants a rare Possession Order to them.

Note - Apologies to the OP for any digression. On the one hand, I am keen to show that there are real structural problems with the benefit system and it is unhelpful to benefit bash the recipients. On the other, I am clearly demonstrating one of the key issues in the shortage of social housing - namely that private landlords end up housing the type of vulnerable tenant that isn't really suited to private accommodation.

No apology necessary!:)

Besides, the issues discussed are pretty relevant.

Reading the above does kinda confirm that the LA essentially mismanaged the property, which is why they were reluctant to go for a possession order.

I'm still a little confused, as I am aware that all the LA's around here will go for a Possession order & eviction order where there has been a genuine breach of tenancy conditions, be that rent arrears, noise or other ASB. & this action would be taken irrelevant of the make up of the family. Likewise, I have been involved in this from a HA's perspective.

If the HRA were to over-ride tenancy law, what incentive has any tenant of an LA, anywhere, to pay any rent whatsoever? All they'd have to do would be ensure that a child under 16 lived there all the time.

It would also render ASB legislation inoperable, as you could have neighbours from hell, with their kids as well as them running riot, yet the LA unable to act because of the HRA.

The more I think about this, the more it seems that the LA are hiding behind the HRA.

silvercar

If the property owner has let the property to a local council or housing association then they should AIUI be able to secure possession quite easily through the courts. This would be governened by normal contract law. There is no AST between the council/ housing association and the property owner as the council/ HA is not in residence. It is then for the council / HA to remove and/or rehouse the tenant.

Jowo_2

lynzpower wrote: »

No doubt that LL will demand a higher rate the next time it is rented out to compensate for the hardship and losses theyve incurred.

No, they lost their appetite for letting out their property and will sell it, possibly being clobbered a huge sum for CGT if the proposed changes take place, and having spent a large minority of the rent they received from the council restoring it back to its original condition.

Like other landlords we accidentally encountered during its restoration who were small-time landlords (a local taxi driver, the plumber and the gas engineer who helped to fix the place up), all of them had bitter tales of LHA tenants and no longer rent to them.

I know a lot of the reluctance that private landlords have for accepting LHA tenants relates to the system and general risks rather than Daily Mail prejudice the OP is railing against, these shared experiences of the poor behaviour of a minority of LHA tenants (not that non-LHA recipients are exempt) mean that their reputation gets even further damaged. It's clear on the housing and benefit forum what a struggle it is for LHA claimants to find landlords to accept them,even with positive references and guarantors.

I'm not a landlord anymore but if I were, based on some of my rather wilder relatives who are in receipt of it (criminals, addicts, mental health issues) versus some of that are viewed more sympathetically by society (abandoned wife made redundant from her job, ex soldier), it does seem to be a bit of a gamble in terms of finding a good tenant more than a working tenant (again, being employed doesn't mean they are automatically good tenants).

Jowo_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

The more I think about this, the more it seems that the LA are hiding behind the HRA.

No, their shoulder shrugging attitude to taking legal action against their tenant on HRA grounds was justified on their experience of presenting cases to the local court which they claimed had a reputation for rarely granting a PO where children were involved unless they could prove beyond a doubt they'd made every effort to rehouse them (they had an AST rather than a secure tenancy in case that's a factor so the council were effectively making them homeless by asking them to move out in the first place and they were probably obligated to try to resolve it themselves and use the court as a total last resort).

This was independently verified on a housing/legal forum which said that Local Authorities do get caught up in HRA legislation which do not affect private landlords. The landlord was then obliged to take the council to court for breaching the lease but had to report them in writing first and give them a month or two for them to review and respond to it before legal proceedings could commence! The lease put all the risk onto the landlord which is why, once landlords start to receive their properties back from B&H council in a bad state, the goodwill to accommodate their tenants will cease.

The failure to hand back the property on time is when we discovered that despite dozens of reports made by neighbours, the landlord or the freeholder against the tenants were dismissed by the Brighton and Hove council Temporary Housing team as 'hearsay' and no anti-social case was ever opened during their tenure that lasted a year plus. "Present the dossier of complaints against the tenants to the court". "There isn't one, you provided no proof with each complaint so we have no obligation to act". No guidance was ever issued on the standard of 'proof' required and so those providing feedback on the tenants behaviour had no idea that it was themselves that were regarded as a nuisance by the council for contacting them without firm evidence.

Shakethedisease

Like other landlords we accidentally encountered during its restoration who were small-time landlords (a local taxi driver, the plumber and the gas engineer who helped to fix the place up

Actually, that sentence alone is a complete 'sum-up' of the type of landlord your average tenant has to cope with too, if we're going to be taking a balanced view here. A local TAXI-DRIVER !!?? A plumber !!? and a gas engineer ?? :eek:

Just how much experience do these people have of being landlords ?

Scary stuff !! And these were ALL 'professional' *coughs* small-time landlords whom you accidentally encountered during the course of ONE restoration ?

Says a lot to me, and it doesn't exactly instill confidence. Thank god we bought. 2 years of just one incompetent 'small time' professional landlord who didn't have a scooby-doo what he was doing, thought repairs were 'optional' and thought and DID raise the rent by £50, then £150 pcm for our last 6 months when things got tough for him,.. oh and try to sell at the same time,the entire time we were living there.

But really, a bit of balance for the tenants. Not all landlords are the best people to BE landlords either. Some are pretty crap at it.

lynzpower

Agreed to a degree Shakethedisease, but isnt the point that the "amateur" landlord has handed these responsibilities over to the GOVERNMENT you would expect to know what to do with managing the property. As a tenant Id much prefer the LA to manage the property than a LL who doesnt know/ doesnt care.

That said, damage to property by tenants is neither the tenants responsibility if the children cant be made homeless ( ie they are protected and always in priority need, so to a degree, what does it matter?) that they wont lose their deposit like private tenants?

I wonder whether there needs to be a deposit taken over the course of the tenancy and for those repairs to "make good" be taken from this?

It puts me in mind of when I was a social worker and I had some ahem rather demanding clients who needed to be housed. Myself and the private lettings officer ( when private lettings was still in it infancy, and LHA not introduced so not quite as lucrative for those private landlords to come forward) and we scored them a wonderful flat, newly refurbished to a pretty good standard. The landlord met with the family, worked out what furniture to get and provided brand new furniture, dining suite, sofas, bunk beds for the kids, the lot.

Within 3 weeks I went over to visit them and the bunk beds were broken up and piled out in the yard. Coffee table upended in the yard. Piled up, broken, weather damaged.

I asked the family why on earth they had dome this, they jsut said they didnt want it,. I said could you not have rang me and I would have asked the landlord to take it away to store elsewhere or use elsewhere in portfolio. They just answered "I had no PAYG credit".

Lemonjelly im sure will understand exactly this sort of behaviour,where you as the worker just throws your hands up in despair. Not only for that landlord, but for the other families who probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to be housed by this landlord, and the amount of work that you and your colleagues have put in to secure the landlord in the first place.

Since then I have visited a number of LA decant properties where tenants have been rehoused for a Decent homes refurb, and aside from the real material needs for new windows, bathrooms, pipework, rewires, but otherwise the properties sometimes completely smashed to bits, smashed sockets, graffitti over the walls, kitchen cubs ripped off the walls and the rest of it.

I notice there is in the "rent-to-homebuy" scheme an aspect where when the tenant occupies, part of that "rent component " goes into a saving plan that goes towards a deposit when buying the property later. It seems a good idea to find some way of getting some finance for LHA/ HB tenants in a savings scheme like this where there is some sort of reward ( ie a cash lump sum at the end of the tenancy that creates a deposit for them to use as thier own collateral) However, this shouldnt IMV be funded by the LHA payment but from a "top up" although how this can be managed Ive no idea. Or that each year, the tenant gets a statement saying you have saved eg 500 over the last year, but on inspection you have graffiti'd the walls and smashed some sockets and the repair costs of these is £480, so look, you have materially lost out because of what you have done, and we will send in the repairs people to do this work, and if you dont allow us in, we'll do the work at the end. I do believe that this type of tenant has no requirement to take responsibility, nor no real need to learn how to take responsibility as the deposit and the rent is paid for them.

Jowo_2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Actually, that sentence alone is a complete 'sum-up' of the type of landlord your average tenant has to cope with too, if we're going to be taking a balanced view here. A local TAXI-DRIVER !!?? A plumber !!? and a gas engineer ?? :eek:

Just how much experience do these people have of being landlords ?

.

Due to the complete decimation of the social housing stock, and worthless pensions that made people turn to property investment, who else is going to fill the vacuum in providing essential services that the government decided to sell off via the Right to Buy to bribe votes out of the working class?

I know there is an image of avaricious landlords with huge portfolios but I'd imagine a large proportion of buy-to-letters are accidental landlords (i.e. had to move to take up employment but couldn't sell the property) or have just a single property.

I agree that BTL opened the door to less experienced landlords but the fact of the matter is that housing the vulnerable has now been turned over to members of the public who are least cut out to deal with nuisance tenants (as well as being less competent should they shun joining a landlord association, etc) compared to social housing landlords who have qualified and experienced staff but little housing stock.

A novice landlord let loose on a vulnerable LHA tenant is the highest risk and a recipe for disaster. But my friend transferred her property to an organisation stuffed full of qualified Housing Officers who contractually promised to maintain it and be responsible for the behaviour of their tenants and did neither.

Clearly, there are problems with private sector leasing as there are two layers of apathy and indifference - the council is relieved not to have to give its stock to an undesirable tenant, such as a newly released sex offender in an abusive domestic relationship, and simply can give up the moment the landlord leases the property to them. They then rent it to someone resentful of not being given social housing who doesn't have to pay a penny if they damage the property and has no investment in it.

lemonjelly

Jowo wrote: »

No, their shoulder shrugging attitude to taking legal action against their tenant on HRA grounds was justified on their experience of presenting cases to the local court which they claimed had a reputation for rarely granting a PO where children were involved unless they could prove beyond a doubt they'd made every effort to rehouse them (they had an AST rather than a secure tenancy in case that's a factor so the council were effectively making them homeless by asking them to move out in the first place and they were probably obligated to try to resolve it themselves and use the court as a total last resort).

This was independently verified on a housing/legal forum which said that Local Authorities do get caught up in HRA legislation which do not affect private landlords. The landlord was then obliged to take the council to court for breaching the lease but had to report them in writing first and give them a month or two for them to review and respond to it before legal proceedings could commence! The lease put all the risk onto the landlord which is why, once landlords start to receive their properties back from B&H council in a bad state, the goodwill to accommodate their tenants will cease.

The failure to hand back the property on time is when we discovered that despite dozens of reports made by neighbours, the landlord or the freeholder against the tenants were dismissed by the Brighton and Hove council Temporary Housing team as 'hearsay' and no anti-social case was ever opened during their tenure that lasted a year plus. "Present the dossier of complaints against the tenants to the court". "There isn't one, you provided no proof with each complaint so we have no obligation to act". No guidance was ever issued on the standard of 'proof' required and so those providing feedback on the tenants behaviour had no idea that it was themselves that were regarded as a nuisance by the council for contacting them without firm evidence.

I have to say this sounds absolutely bizarre to me. My experience (working in a HA, & having worked for a number of charities for quite some time) is quite different to the situation you describe. It almost sounds like the local courts have taken an issue for themselves, & are treating the council quite differently from all other LL's - something they really should not do. Further, if they had AST's, then there are mandatory grounds under which a court has to grant possession to the LL.

I have worked on behalf of tenants & LL's, & just find this siituation so strange! I'm suprised that the LA aren't challenging some of the courts decisions...