Council disclosed information to landlord

BrettMorganxD

john539 wrote: »

The LA might contact a random selection of landlords as additional fraud check to check details they are allowed to, to check details match what tenant says & landlord exists & agrees.

Some tenants might need to claim HB supplementary though like I did so could be both working and on HB.

john539

birkee wrote: »

Off track????
Wasn't the subject under discussion whether the HB payers had a right to check with a Landlord about rent charged.
The case I quoted was exactly that. Landlords and Tenants, and the fact that some people are being both.

The authorities have a right to check, which is how they exposed the family fraud ring quoted.
It seems you argue for the fraudsters to be allowed to continue unharrassed.
Off track?

What has this got to do with this thread ?

This thread is about LA contacting landlord when tenant said they didn't want them to.

You're bringing everything & anything into the mix.

So how did this council expose this fraud when they contacted the ring of family fraudsters. This has nothing to do with this thread.

antrobus

BrettMorganxD wrote: »

But, doing that gives the information away anyway like you said, surely? but why would they contact their landlord for information there is other ways to get information via tenancy aggreement and proof of paying rent.

Thats all I gave and I got benefit within 2 weeks

Well....

john539 wrote: »

The LA might contact a random selection of landlords as additional fraud check to check details they are allowed to, to check details match what tenant says & landlord exists & agrees.

... that would be the answer. Besides if the LA states on the HB application form that they can contact the landlord to confirm information without the applicant's permission then that's what it says.

antrobus

john539 wrote: »

What has this got to do with this thread ?

This thread is about LA contacting landlord when tenant said they didn't want them to.

You're bringing everything & anything into the mix.

So how did this council expose this fraud when they contacted the ring of family fraudsters. This has nothing to do with this thread.

To be honest with you, very little of what's been posted on this thread has had anything to do with the original question. But then that's the way things often turn out here in MSEland.

MissMoneypenny

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The checks are to look for any repairs that need doing to the property; not to check up on the tenent. Look it up.

A tenant can refuse these checks, but if they are then injured because of something that wasn't repaired, they have no claim against the landlord.

Surely you checked the housing laws before you entered into the business of being a landlord? They are quite easy to read and you are legally responsible for the

FBaby wrote: »

Are you so sure you know the law so well yourself??? Because your advice goes against what I have read. On england.shelter.org.uk, it states clearly the following:

What does the tenant have to do if there is disrepair?

As a tenant you will need to give notice of any disrepair. The landlord will not be responsible until they know about the problem. There is no breach of their obligations if the landlord carries out the necessary repairs within a reasonable time. The landlord should reply to the tenant within a reasonable time after receiving the tenant’s letter.
At this point, the landlord should show the tenant all relevant documents, and confirm whether they accept responsibility, and if so, what action(s) they will take to fix the problem.
If no satisfactory response is received the tenant may start court action.

I think you might need to re-read your Shelter quote, so that you can understand what they are saying. Did you think the above part you highlighted in red meant you had a right of entry to check up on the tenants? Did you look up why a check-up may be carried out, as I suggested? And see that it was not to check-up on the tenant?


I'll break the above quote down.

As a tenant you will need to give notice of any disrepair.

A tenant is required to act in a tenant like behaviour. Tell the landlord or letting agent of any repairs you notice. (What they should have added was that this should be in writing to prove you have done this - I'll email Shelter - thanks for pointing it out.)

The landlord will not be responsible until they know about the problem.

If you are injured because of the repairs not being caried out, you cannot claim compensation from the landlord, as you didn't tell the landlord about the repairs. (there are exceptions of course).

There is no breach of their obligations if the landlord carries out the necessary repairs within a reasonable time. The landlord should reply to the tenant within a reasonable time after receiving the tenant’s letter.

If the repair wasn't an urgent repair to prevent injury, the landlord can carry out the repair in reasonable time (the problem here is that often it is left to the courts to decide if the landlord repaired in a "reasonable" time).

At this point, the landlord should show the tenant all relevant documents, and confirm whether they accept responsibility, and if so, what action(s) they will take to fix the problem.

The landlord should confirm it is their repair to do (as oppose to damage friom the tenant, tenant's family or friends) and ask tenant for available dates to fix their repairs. (Often the landlord asks the permissioin from the tenant to give their relevant repair person the contact number of the tenant, so they can sort out available dates between them).

If no satisfactory response is received the tenant may start court action.

If repairs aren't done or they don't hear when the repairs are going to carried out, then the tenant can take the landlord to court.
In fact,there are other options for the tenant:-
1. Calling in their local council's private housing officers to come and do an inspection and if necessary, the council will contact the lanlord or do the repairs and bill the landlord. This often means a higher bill and maybe other repairs as the council will also carry out safety checks and this involves things that may seem quite minor to an amatuer landlord i.e. width of stairs to the number of handrails; width of railings around landling.
2. Precedent has been set in court for a case where the tenant paid for the repairs when the landlord failed to carry these out and then took the payments from the rent. This has to be carried out in a certain order and is also on Shelters site.

The other thing to be careful of is that (as many landlords and tenants have pointed out) Shelter don't always get it right.

FBaby wrote: »

No offence, but I don't believe from what you've been writing that you are the expert in tenancy law you claim to be...

No offence taken. I didn't say I was an expert in tenancy law, but I was a little shocked at your poor legal knowledge of the business you are running. I was merely pointing out to you all the errors you were making as a landlord with regards to entry of your tenants home.

I hope you won't take offence when I say that if you couldn't understand something as basic as your above quote from Shelter, that is written in very plain English (and you obviously haven't read the Housing Laws either) wouldn't it be safer for you to join a Landlords Association so that they can guide you with the law? You don't want to end up in court and prison. Membership of this association is tax deductable I believe. You have declared your rental income to HMRC, haven't you? Protected your tenants deposit in one of the 3 schemes? Got an EPC and in-date Gas Safety Certificate? And kept the previous year's gas safety certificate?

puddy

FBaby wrote: »

ha ha, like how you jump to conclusion... my wording was 'entitled' to do a check every 3 months, long way away from having a legal right to do so, but surely, what is the point of this entitlement if in the end, there is nothing you can do at all with what you could find?

Of course I am not talking about dirty carpet, I am talking about more serious matters such as holes in the walls, cables ripped apart, smell of dog's poo and such things.

At which stage tenants' rights start and landlord's stops and vice versa? Surely that is the basis of the contract? If the landlord doesn't want dogs in the property and states it in the contract, it is up to the tenant to decide whether they are prepared to abide by it or not. If they don't like it they can go somewhere else... so surely if a landlord does a visit and find 5 dogs with damage to the property and horrible smell coming from the brand new carpets, they have a right to give notice for the dogs to go and repairs carried out immediately and then give notice of eviction if still not sorted after a certain time?

no, you are not entitled to at all, you can request this

FBaby

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Did you think the above part you highlighted in red meant you had a right of entry to check up on the tenants? Did you look up why a check-up may be carried out, as I suggested? And see that it was not to check-up on the tenant?

Re-read my posts please. I have never stated that the landlord had a right of entry, just merely stated that he was ENTITLED to do so if it was agreed in the contract. That is very different.




You don't need to, I can read very well thank you!!!



I'll remind you of YOUR quote

So why would a landlord want to check regularly for repairs required if they are only liable to pay compensation if they knew about the repairs required? You would have to be a dumb landlord to put yourself in a situation to be vulnerable!!!


You misinterpret what people write and challenge them on your misinterpretations. You know, I have no incentive whatsoever to enter into an argument with someone who claims to know so much about a particular subject, but your arrogance and attitude feels me with no confidence whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

youngian

Make sure you have the monthly rent on a tenancy agreement and get monthly reciepts as well to provide extra evidence to the Housing Benefit people if you lose your job or income had dropped.
As long as a landlord gets the rent on time from the tenant there's no reason for them to know and the tenant is not breaking any laws.

I had similar stupidity from the Jobcentre by applying for my train fare for an interview. Despite showing her evidience of the interview she only wanted to ring up the employer before my interview.

I got the job so it didn't matter but did she ever stop and think what impression she was setting? "Hello this is dole office, just ringing to check the person your interviewing tomorrow isn't a benefit fraudster."

FBaby

Ok, had a closer read and it does state in the Act that 'Section 11 – subsection (6) implies a term into the tenancy agreement that landlords with section 11 repairing responsibilities (or people authorised by them) have the right to access the property for the purpose of viewing its condition and state of repair'

So surely, entering the property to check its condition does imply checking if the tenants have been looking after the house in addition to whether there are any repairs required? I see it as a give and take. You see something that needs repairing that your tenants might not have raised up in writing, you better make sure you repair it as you became aware of the problem (not sure how much you could argue that you didn't see the need of the repair during the visit......), however it does give you the chance to check on the condition of the house so if indeed walls had been knocked out, you could take further steps.

Of course, in the end it comes down to the kind of tenant/landlord you are. If I, myself, saw during a visit something that needed repairing, regardless of whether I had been notified of it or not, I would WANT to repair it. It is my property and I want it to remain in a good condition AND good repairs.

antrobus

youngian wrote: »

Make sure you have the monthly rent on a tenancy agreement and get monthly reciepts as well to provide extra evidence to the Housing Benefit people...

None of which changes the fact that it states on form HCTB1

We may need to confirm information with your landlord before we can make a decision on your claim, for example, the start date of your tenancy. In these circumstances, we can contact your landlord without your permission.

After all, given five minutes on the interweb, I could knock up a 'tenancy agreement' and stick any number on it I liked, and get nextdoor's ten-year-old to squiggle a signature at the bottom so that it looked real.

youngian wrote: »

I had similar stupidity from the Jobcentre by applying for my train fare for an interview. Despite showing her evidience of the interview she only wanted to ring up the employer before my interview.

I got the job so it didn't matter but did she ever stop and think what impression she was setting? "Hello this is dole office, just ringing to check the person your interviewing tomorrow isn't a benefit fraudster."

Once again, it wouldn't be that difficult to knock up 'evidence' of a job interview either. (Just a letter on headed notepaper I'd warrant.) I would kind of expect that the authorities would almost as a matter of course carry out some basic anti-fraud checks before handing out money. And I'd bet that the employer concerned simply treated the phone call as perfectly normal and thought nothing of it, you're unlikely to have been the only person they've ever invited for interview that happened to be on JSA.