Council disclosed information to landlord

john539

antrobus wrote: »

Well....

... 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.

Sorry not sure what you're getting at.

Better to be clear than smart.

My post was answering someone asking why LA would want to contact LA when they have all info.

LA can contact, but generally don't.

john539

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Think of it this way, the tenant owns the property for the period of the tenancy.

john539

antrobus wrote: »

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

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.

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.

Nope !

If it's that simple, get your friend or someone on street to act as the landlord.

You could startup a pyramid fraud. :rotfl:

puddy

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

My landlord's insurance policy has a specific clause denying eligibility for certain aspects of cover if the tenant receives Housing Benefit - unless a guarantor is also provided.

If one is unable to determine a tenant's receipt of this benefit then one would not necessarily recognise that a guarantor is necessary to meet the insurance conditions.

and as i said earlier, seeing as you have no way of knowing whether someone receives HB or not, why did you pick an insurance policy which exludes cover for when you have a tenant on hb?

unless you're happy to not be covered for those particular things?

and to all landlords, i say again, you are not 'entitled' to check the property during tenure, despite any such clause in the tenancy agreement as this is overidden by the tenants right to quiet enjoyment of the property. they can agree but they dont have to

MissMoneypenny

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Maybe best if you join a landlords association, so they can help?

birkee

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Iv'e been trying to work out why you are so angry at the law, when you have already said you aren't a landlord. Is it because you wanted your grandson to claim LHA as well as JSA when he came to live with you?

Petty!
I was asking a question, because I had NO knowledge of the benefits system, and what or how he should deal with it.
As it happens, he gets NOTHING now, as he's gone back to college.

Not at all angry with the law.
What I'm angry at, is people who seem the think their lives are sancrosanct and untouchable as long as they pay their rent.
I've attempted to indicate by example, that there are plenty of cases where their smug world can be torn down by Landlords, or society at large.

The point was, that other people and Society have / has rights, as well as Tenants who pay their rents.
You seem determined to oppose this view which seems to suggest your attitude to everybody else in the world is "stuff you".

MissMoneypenny

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Again, maybe it is best if you join a landlords assocaition so they can help you understand the law and hopefully not end up in court on criminal charges.

birkee

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

You seem to have ignored the example of a family of immigrants, all being house OWNERS, and all paying rent to each other, AND claiming HB.
Proof of rent payment is as worthless as saying "because I say so."
Sometimes, further checks need to be made.
What is to prevent me, as a house owner, drawing up a fake rental agreement describing me as a Tenant, and claiming housing benefit?
I'm sure certain people are quite capable of giving a relatives address as the Landlords. (As proved the case above.)

birkee

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.

Why is this so hard to understand?
I used extreme examples in frustration, to indicate that the act of paying rent, does NOT entitle the Tenant to "quiet and private enjoyment of their home" as keeps getting quoted.

Some things that go on in private, are unacceptable to both Landlord and / or Society at large.
Some Tenants are no longer entitled to that laws protection because of unacceptable behaviour IN PRIVATE, or contravention of their tenancy agreement.

MissMoneypenny

birkee wrote: »

I've attempted to indicate by example, that there are plenty of cases where their smug world can be torn down by Landlords, or society at large.

We have laws in this country and we all have to live by them or suffer the consequences. There are laws for landlords and tenants too.

Many peoples world can be torn down by society, just look at all the welfare changes that are coming in.

birkee wrote: »

You seem determined to oppose this view which seems to suggest your attitude to everybody else in the world is "stuff you".

The laws are already in place and I was merely pointing them out. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we want to obey (unless we want to end up in prison).