Council disclosed information to landlord

birkee

puddy wrote: »

you cannot enforce any contractual agreement if that agreement is against the laws of the land

if the landlord wants to check the property, and the tenant (having signed a contract to agree this) then doesnt agree, the landlord could try to end the tenancy based on breach of contract

but i wouldnt hold their breath. an eviction order has to be issued by a judge. the landlord would be best placed to simply wait for the end of the natural tenancy and not renew it and wait for some other more gullible tenant to come along who doesnt know the law

You still haven't got over the point, that if they didn't agree, he wouldn't rent to them.
Or, do you think it's right to start a tenancy with deception? What else regarding the tenancy would be ignored?

puddy

birkee wrote: »

You still haven't got over the point, that if they didn't agree, he wouldn't rent to them.
Or, do you think it's right to start a tenancy with deception? What else regarding the tenancy would be ignored?

tenants dont have the choice if they want somewhere to live

landlords should know that they cannot enforce this and so shouldnt view a tenant badly or suspiciously if the tenants says, no i dont want any checks in my years AST, but that doesnt happen does it, so what else is a tenant supposed to do

the fault lies with landlords wanting to put (and enforce) illegal terms in a contract

with regard to landlords suspicions, we are all innocent until proven guilty, if a crime is being committed anywhere (whether its a tenant in their home, a home owner in their home, or a person on the street) someone has the right and duty to report that

quiet enjoyment is a tenancy term, its applicable under the housing act, but if you want to be pedantic about how none of us have 'quiet enjoyment' of anything - because at any time the police could knock on my door and say they thought i committed a crime - then no, we dont

but that isnt really applicable to the discussion about whether a landlord is 'entitled' to enter the tenant's home every 3 months

the fact is, in law they are not, no matter what is in the contract

BrettMorganxD

puddy wrote: »

tenants dont have the choice if they want somewhere to live

landlords should know that they cannot enforce this and so shouldnt view a tenant badly or suspiciously if the tenants says, no i dont want any checks in my years AST, but that doesnt happen does it, so what else is a tenant supposed to do

the fault lies with landlords wanting to put (and enforce) illegal terms in a contract

with regard to landlords suspicions, we are all innocent until proven guilty, if a crime is being committed anywhere (whether its a tenant in their home, a home owner in their home, or a person on the street) someone has the right and duty to report that

quiet enjoyment is a tenancy term, its applicable under the housing act, but if you want to be pedantic about how none of us have 'quiet enjoyment' of anything - because at any time the police could knock on my door and say they thought i committed a crime - then no, we dont

but that isnt really applicable to the discussion about whether a landlord is 'entitled' to enter the tenant's home every 3 months

the fact is, in law they are not, no matter what is in the contract

I lived above a shop in my old flat. My landlord was coming up and down stairs 3-4 times a day. Do this don't do that.

My tenancy aggrement said "to live in the property undisturbed" landlords just don't care

antrobus

john539 wrote: »

Nope !

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

You could startup a pyramid fraud.

Well that's what people have done in the past. Google the "Shamini Kowridas" case which involved bogus tenancy agreements and fake tenants and went on for ten years. Or the more recent case of one Vivienne Bromfield who got eight months "after pleading guilty of supplying Hillingdon Council with falsified tenancy agreements for property she actually owned". It is done you know.

john539

antrobus wrote: »

Well that's what people have done in the past. Google the "Shamini Kowridas" case which involved bogus tenancy agreements and fake tenants and went on for ten years. Or the more recent case of one Vivienne Bromfield who got eight months "after pleading guilty of supplying Hillingdon Council with falsified tenancy agreements for property she actually owned". It is done you know.

This isn't detected or stopped by council contacting fraudulent landlord. :doh:

This could happen anywhere in any industry where a group of people collude and know what they are doing.

It is difficult to detect & won't be detected by normal checks.

antrobus

john539 wrote: »

This isn't detected or stopped by council contacting fraudulent landlord.

This could happen anywhere in any industry where a group of people collude and know what they are doing.

It is difficult to detect & won't be detected by normal checks.

And so what? I was simply drawing your attention to the evidence that existed that showed that drawing up a mickey mouse tenancy agreement was a fairly trivial challenge. If a tenant was motivated to concoct a false agreement with the intention of fradulently obtaining housing benefit, then one phone call to the landlord would confirm that was the case and bring the whole cunning plan to an unfortunate end.

As somebody already pointed out;

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.

And since that somebody was you, I find it difficult to comprehend what it is you're exactly arguing about.

john539

antrobus wrote: »

And so what? I was simply drawing your attention to the evidence that existed that showed that drawing up a mickey mouse tenancy agreement was a fairly trivial challenge. If a tenant was motivated to concoct a false agreement with the intention of fradulently obtaining housing benefit, then one phone call to the landlord would confirm that was the case and bring the whole cunning plan to an unfortunate end.

As somebody already pointed out;

And since that somebody was you, I find it difficult to comprehend what it is you're exactly arguing about.

You don't need to draw my attention to anything, you just need to post something relevant.

So your general example of family fraud isn't relevant to thread or easily solved.

No, fraud isn't easy, because it's all traceable & will unravel.

Landlord/tenant fraud isn't easy because they would have to trust each other & one could blackmail other.

My last comment was in answer to someone else.

Brodiebobs

I recently enquired on mortgages board about getting a mortgage to rent a property out, because of the area i am in i was open to the fact that my tennants would more than likely be funded by LA in some form or other. I was told that i would struggle to get a mortgage because of this, after see-ing a broker they also confirmed this would be difficult.

As stated on this thread somewhere in the region of 40% of rentals are funded this way does this mean 40% of rental properties are owned outright? It seems starnge that so many properties must be funded this way, yet no-one wants to lend, insure or advertise these properties?

puddy

it does make you wonder what would happen if you got a mortgage, based quite legitmately on your assertion that you would advertise 'no dss' (even though its not dss but you know what i mean)

later, the tenant loses their job and claims benefits

whether they tell you or not, your mortgage provider finds out - what would they do?

Brodiebobs

puddy wrote: »

it does make you wonder what would happen if you got a mortgage, based quite legitmately on your assertion that you would advertise 'no dss' (even though its not dss but you know what i mean)

later, the tenant loses their job and claims benefits

whether they tell you or not, your mortgage provider finds out - what would they do?

Thats what i thought, when i was looking for somewhere for my BIL to rent, he was an apprentice so only on low income, was told he would get HA but all flats in our area were 'no dss'. I called a few letting agents and was told this title was to put off bad tennants (!?) and that if he had a job and the HA was only a top up they would, and did take him on. As far as i know they never contacted the landlord he just had to show the tennancy agreement he signed, which also didnt mention benefit entitlement (i went through it with a fine tooth comb!) to the benefit office.

Therefore the letting agent could be doing a job on the landlord, advertising no dss as maybe his mortgage doesnt allow, then taking someone on who claims top-up, obviously as the BIL worked and had no debt he would pass the credit check, so the landlord had done his best to ensure he had complied...