Overcrowding???

EmRayMarRhys

Has nobody considered that this baby may have been planned and created prior to the OP's partner having his hours cut?

Circumstances change, even in the space of 31 weeks, especially in today's financial cllimate.

Social rents are lower as they take into account the actual cost to house people rather than good old profit... for the landlord and/or the BTL mortgage market - both factors that determine private rents.

tabskitten

Catblue wrote: »

But Tabby surely you can see that having an anti-benefits stance is a little hypocritical when YOU as the landlord are the one on the receiving end of them? You are the one who wants your grubby hands on this money that you claim to despise. And now you're whining that they've been suspended.

If I told you that I was completely anti-drugs, felt that they have a huge negative effect on society and I despised drug users then you'd call me a huge hypocrite if I then revealed that I was a drug dealer. And rightly so. Profiting from something that you claim to despise is never going to be an easy sell on the morality front.

And anyway, this is NOTHING to do with Steph's situation and is not helping her. Start your own thread if you want a rant. I thought you were supposed to be emigrating anyway?

No its not - I would MUCH prefer to have a tenant that was not LHA- now i know how difficult it all is and how much stress it has been- in fact i was advised against taking her on but in my naivety told everyone to stop discriminating and to 'give her a chance''. Stupid me!! People discriminate with good reason I have learnt! Silly me!

Its the arrears which is one of the things which is stopping us getting out of this mess of a country- that and the housing market.....

I know that things are no better elsewhere, but some countries try to reward those that work hard and try to at least encourage people to provide for their children themselves, the state we are looking at going to gives food vouchers still so that at least they know that the money is going where it is intended. Childrens tummies rather than parents luxuries. That would be considered ''dis-empowering'' in this country now.

That was the word used when I asked my council why my tenent had to get 2k into arrears before the rent would go direct to me....'' they would hate to dis- empower her''.
All they did was power her 42in plasma screen it seems.

Sorry for busting your thread with a rant OP and I am sure you are a very responsible individual- however its not entirely irrelevant is it..... Too many babies come into this country with parents that have not thought how they are going to fund and look after a child ( because lets face it with the system as it is you no longer have to take financial responsibility yourself) and my old fashioned opinion is that if you do not have the means to support a family them you should not be planning one.

Apologies and i'll sod off now.

Wee_Willy_Harris

tabskitten wrote: »

Apologies and i'll sod off now.

I think that's probably wise.

Jowo_2

tabskitten wrote: »

once again she is living under my roof and working up greater arrears at my expense- and no the council will not let me evict her either as she has a baby under 1 year old .........

I assume that you let your property to the LHA claimant on an AST, in which case the contract is solely between you and them. So long as you properly serve notice, you can get a court order (possession notice) and then enforce it with court appointed bailiffs.

Why do you think the council will not permit you to evict the tenant? Sure, they may advise her to stay put until you get the court order, but they can't stop you from taking legal action with the tenant.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

I assume that you let your property to the LHA claimant on an AST, in which case the contract is solely between you and them. So long as you properly serve notice, you can get a court order (possession notice) and then enforce it with court appointed bailiffs.

Why do you think the council will not permit you to evict the tenant? Sure, they may advise her to stay put until you get the court order, but they can't stop you from taking legal action with the tenant.

In fact, as we've drifted into the subject, the council may even be able to assist you. Most Local Authorities have a homeless prevention fund, a sum of money to be used to prevent tenants being evicted wherever possible. They can use this money in any productive way they see fit (as long as the aims are still the prevention of homelessness). It might be worth having a chat with them to see if there is anything they can do to reduce your tenants arrears.

Of course, this means accepting more of the taxpayers money, which I know you hate. But your conscience isn't my concern.

Jowo_2

tabskitten wrote: »

No- i am currently at a loss of over £2000

No- the council can (and have) overrule me as a landlord and instruct my tenant to stay put.

Believe me I have tried.

.

Ah, right, the gatekeeping principle whereby the local authority tell the tenant to ignore the notice and force the landlord to take them to court.

They are not supposed to advise tenants to stay put where there is no realistic chance of them continuing to live there - other landlords have complained to the LA ombudsman about this practice and seek their court costs from them. Ask the landlordzone forum about this process.

They haven't over-ruled you, they've just informed the tenant of her right to stay there until you regain possession of the property through the courts. If any private tenant on an AST doesn't move out when served notice, the landlord must proceed to this step.

Have a look at the landlord action website if you haven't got the appetite to do the eviction process yourself - they offer fixed fees for each step.

Tenants evicted for rent arrears when they could have paid rent but do not are not supposed to get assistance from the local authority on the grounds that they've made themselves intentionally homeless but not sure what the position is on this for those with kids or those whose LHA is suspended.

Jowo_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

...Most Local Authorities have a homeless prevention fund, a sum of money to be used to prevent tenants being evicted wherever possible. They can use this money in any productive way they see fit (as long as the aims are still the prevention of homelessness).

Never, ever heard of this. Local Authorities push back on landlord arrears as the contract is between tenant and landlord, not LA and landlord and see it as a dispute solely between T and L. I would be staggered if a LA suspends a suspected fraudulent LHA claim on the one hand, then pays the landlord on the other.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

Ah, right, the gatekeeping principle whereby the local authority tell the tenant to ignore the notice and force the landlord to take them to court.

They are not supposed to advise tenants to stay put where there is no realistic chance of them continuing to live there - other landlords have complained to the LA ombudsman about this practice and seek their court costs from them. Ask the landlordzone forum about this process.

They haven't over-ruled you, they've just informed the tenant of her right to stay there until you regain possession of the property through the courts. If any private tenant on an AST doesn't move out when served notice, the landlord must proceed to this step.

Have a look at the landlord action website if you haven't got the appetite to do the eviction process yourself - they offer fixed fees for each step.

Tenants evicted for rent arrears when they could have paid rent but do not are not supposed to get assistance from the local authority on the grounds that they've made themselves intentionally homeless but not sure what the position is on this for those with kids or those whose LHA is suspended.

Good practice is for LA to NOT insist that tenants remain past the expiry of their notice, but it does happen... often.

However, this doesn't prevent a LL from evicting.

Those found to have made themselves homeless as a result of deliberate asct or omissions (non payment of rent) WILL be found to have made themselves intentionally homeless and, as such, the LA will have no DUTY to re-house. However, reasonable assistance should still be provided. Of course, while the homeless application is being dealt with, the applicant will have access to emergency accommodation which is what the LA is trying to avoid.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

Never, ever heard of this. Local Authorities push back on landlord arrears as the contract is between tenant and landlord, not LA and landlord and see it as a dispute solely between T and L. I would be staggered if a LA suspends a suspected fraudulent LHA claim on the one hand, then pays the landlord on the other.

Obviously, fraud is a different issue. But if the rent arrears had accrued ofr another reason (poor financial management etc) then an arrangement is possible between LL and tenant with the homeless prevention fund. It's not just restricted to rent. I have heard of it being used to clear rubbish from a garden, decorate, all sorts of ingenious uses. The usual thing with rent arrears is a 3 way split. T pays a 3rd, LA mathches it and the LL writes off the last 3rd, but there are no hard and fast rules. It's kept pretty quiet to avoid abuse (by LLs AND Ts)