tenant not living in flat .

Sphynx

I would be putting bets on a cannabis factory, no joke. Go and have a sniff through the letter box and ask the neighbours when they last saw him...

delain

I don't see why anyone would claim HB for a flat used solely as a cannabis factory and not occupied? Then the police would have their name and info because you do need to give actual information. AFAIK these flats are paid for in cash rather than by benefits.

I do know someone who lost their (council) house because they moved out and just left it empty with the rent still being paid.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Sphynx wrote: »

I would be putting bets on a cannabis factory, no joke. Go and have a sniff through the letter box and ask the neighbours when they last saw him...

I'll take that bet. He's been there 5 years. I'm with the "girlfriend" camp myself.

N79

Sphynx wrote: »

I would be putting bets on a cannabis factory, no joke. Go and have a sniff through the letter box and ask the neighbours when they last saw him...

I'll would take it as well - this just does not fit the cannabis factory profile.

clutton_2

the housing benefit is now being claimed fraudulently as the claimant is not living there.. the LL apparently does not yet know officially if that is the case or not -

If the council become aware of this (and NEVER underestimate the power of the neighbours) then they can claim theh overpayment back from the landlord. Whether you continue with this risk or not is up to you...

Wee_Willy_Harris

clutton wrote: »

the housing benefit is now being claimed fraudulently as the claimant is not living there.. the LL apparently does not yet know officially if that is the case or not -

If the council become aware of this (and NEVER underestimate the power of the neighbours) then they can claim theh overpayment back from the landlord. Whether you continue with this risk or not is up to you...

You're quite right and my earlier post on the matter was in error. I had assumed LHA was going direct to tenant in the usual way.

poppysarah

sharpee wrote: »

I thought most tenancy agreements stated a property shouldn't be left unoccupied for more than 2 weeks without notice to the LL/LA?

It should state whatever the insurance allows ... that'd be fair.

DVardysShadow

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I'll take that bet. He's been there 5 years. I'm with the "girlfriend" camp myself.

N79 wrote: »

I'll would take it as well - this just does not fit the cannabis factory profile.

Ah, but no electricity since November?

Girlfriend?? Cannabis Factory??
Cannabis Factory?? Girlfriend??

:confused icon

carolt

Hate to suggest the bleeding obvious, but instead of posting on here, why don't you just ask the tenant?

I rent and if my landlord had any suspicions about me of whatever nature, I'd want them to discuss it with me first.

Serving notice seems both drastic and unnecessary - there may be a perfectly innocent explanation. Maybe they work night shists so sleep during the day? Maybe they go clubbing a lot? Maybe they have a light phobia? Maybe they have prying neighbours? etc etc.

Or they could be a vampire.

Why don't you drop a note through the door saying you've not seen them/the property for a while and have a couple of matters to discuss. Could they suggest a time. Then meet and chat - tell them your concerns as you've told us.


If they are dodgy, better to find out sooner.

If they're not, why lose a good, reliable tenant?

terryw

clutton wrote: »

the housing benefit is now being claimed fraudulently as the claimant is not living there.. the LL apparently does not yet know officially if that is the case or not -

If the council become aware of this (and NEVER underestimate the power of the neighbours) then they can claim theh overpayment back from the landlord. Whether you continue with this risk or not is up to you...

Dead right. The chances of the council claiming back HB from the LL in a case like this move from "can" to "will".