Overcrowding???

Wee_Willy_Harris

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.

I have learnt my lesson- I will have no choice but to discriminate harshly against any potential rentals who are LHA in the future- if I ever get her out of my property that is.

Your costs are of no concern, your deemed "loss" does not alter the fact that the taxpayer (including the OP) has paid you well over the course of this last year. I presume that had the property been void all that time, your "loss" would have been greater? And, had the LHA continued, you would have been quite happy to accept it.

Again, the council CANNOT dictate your legitimate actions as a landlord. To evict, within the legislation, is always YOUR choice.

BitterAndTwisted

tabskitten wrote: »

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

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

Believe me I have tried.

I have learned my lesson- I will have no choice but to discriminate harshly against any potential rentals who are LHA in the future- if I ever get her out of my property that is.

I know this has nothing to do with the subject at hand but would you care to explain how and by what method any council could over-rule your eviction proceedings? As far as I know only a court could do that.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

You have examples of social rents being higher than private for a similar property in the same area? I find that very difficult to believe. If that is the case, why are the people staying in the social housing?

Security of tenure is the main thing. Pay your rent and behave and you can't be evicted. Isn't security something we ALL want?

steph.x_2

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

If the pregnancy is not relevant to the OP, why was it mentioned.

I mentioned every person in the household... as my issue was overcrowding

xx

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Security of tenure is the main thing. Pay your rent and behave and you can't be evicted. Isn't security something we ALL want?

Surely that security of tenure has a value, which is not factored into LA rents.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Surely that security of tenure has a value, which is not factored into LA rents.

And you raise another attraction.... controlled rents.

tabskitten

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I know this has nothing to do with the subject at hand but would you care to explain how and by what method any council could over-rule your eviction proceedings? As far as I know only a court could do that.

Because she has been told not to move until the council have rehoused her- and due to her massive arrears there are not many people offering to have her. Due to her having a baby under 1 year the council nor court will not put her on the street.



Why not just admit that the current benefits system and attitude totally shafts some people!!
I know that not all people claiming benefits are lazy scroungers- but I also know PLENTY that are.
There is a reason that some of us on here are so anti benefits!!! We are not all just being unreasonable or mean!!

Wee_Willy_Harris

tabskitten wrote: »

Because she has been told not to move until the council have rehoused her- and due to her massive arrears there are not many people offering to have her. Due to her having a baby under 1 year the council nor court will not put her on the street.

Satisfied?!?!

Why not just admit that the current benefits system and attitude totally shafts some people!!
I know that not all people claiming benefits are lazy scroungers- but I also know PLENTY that are.
There is a reason that some of us on here are so anti benefits!!! We are not all just being unreasonable or mean!!

Trust me, Tabs, you CAN evict. Her re-housng is NOT your concern.

steph.x_2

tabskitten wrote: »

Why not just admit that the current benefits system and attitude totally shafts some people!!
I know that not all people claiming benefits are lazy scroungers- but I also know PLENTY that are.
There is a reason that some of us on here are so anti benefits!!! We are not all just being unreasonable or mean!!

But this has no relavance at all to my OP... if you wanted to start slating the benefits system, why come onto my thread that has no reference to the benefit system at all and start ranting about it ??

Catblue

tabskitten wrote: »

Because she has been told not to move until the council have rehoused her- and due to her massive arrears there are not many people offering to have her. Due to her having a baby under 1 year the council nor court will not put her on the street.



Why not just admit that the current benefits system and attitude totally shafts some people!!
I know that not all people claiming benefits are lazy scroungers- but I also know PLENTY that are.
There is a reason that some of us on here are so anti benefits!!! We are not all just being unreasonable or mean!!

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?