Council disclosed information to landlord

puddy

i think its unwise to be so certain. i dont know how the letting agency can claim that they will ALWAYS know if someone claims hb

are the exclusions in your insurance (and in other's mortgage agreements) just for housing related benefits?

what about other benefits, what about pensioners or disabled people?

its utter discrimination to say that someone cant let to someone on 'benefits' even if they are just specifying housing benefits as many people who are disabled rely on housing benefit in a way that is unavoidable

its very odd

edited to respond to your edit - evict them in what way? if its before the end of the original period you need to have a reason dont you? what would your reason be - that they didnt allow you to enforce an illegal clause?

antrobus

john539 wrote: »

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.

I was simply explaining that there are good reasons why a tenancy agreement isn't of itself 100% secure evidence of the terms of that tenancy or even that tenancy exists - because 'knocking up' a fake one is a fairly trivial exercise. Which is one of the reasons why LAs stick the "We may need to confirm information with your landlord ..." warning on the application form, and why they sometimes follow through by actually doing so.

Or to put it another way, I was simply explaining why you were right when you said;

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.

Goodness why you have since decided to dispute the fact that it is possible to conjur up a mickey mouse tenancy agreement, because if it wasn't possible, there wouldn't be any need for an 'additional fraud check' would there?

john539

antrobus wrote: »

I was simply explaining that there are good reasons why a tenancy agreement isn't of itself 100% secure evidence of the terms of that tenancy or even that tenancy exists - because 'knocking up' a fake one is a fairly trivial exercise. Which is one of the reasons why LAs stick the "We may need to confirm information with your landlord ..." warning on the application form, and why they sometimes follow through by actually doing so.

Or to put it another way, I was simply explaining why you were right when you said;



Goodness why you have since decided to dispute the fact that it is possible to conjur up a mickey mouse tenancy agreement, because if it wasn't possible, there wouldn't be any need for an 'additional fraud check' would there?

Your argument is ridiculous.

It isn't easy to commit fraud because the council will send out letters which will get returned, will pay to a bank account which is traceable.

It will quickly unravel.

Then you can't claim HB/LHA for any address and will be homeless.

That's very smart isn't it.

birkee

john539 wrote: »

Your argument is ridiculous.

It isn't easy to commit fraud because the council will send out letters which will get returned, will pay to a bank account which is traceable.

It will quickly unravel.

Then you can't claim HB/LHA for any address and will be homeless.

That's very smart isn't it.

You continue to ignore the case of the immigrant family working the system don't you?
It went on for years, and they were discovered by accident.

You continue to give an opinion, which is overidden by actual cases, yet we still get YOUR opinion.

FBaby

Thank you Puddy for your patronizing responses!

I have done a bit of reading now, and it seems to me that it is much more of a grey area than you seem to claim. Tenants are entitled to 'quiet enjoyment' and not being disturbed. As such they can refuse entry, even if they have signed a contract, even if they are given notice.

However, a number of documents quote the following; 'Tenants must be free from unwarranted intrusion by anyone, including the landlord. If the tenancy agreement allows the landlord to enter the property without the tenant’s consent, except for good reason (such as in an emergency or to inspect the property on reasonable notice), the term may be unfair.'

It seems to be that it might all come down to reasonability. If a landlord was informed by say the neighbours that they thought the tenants were breaking down an extension to the house and the landord gave notice to visit the property, but the tenant refused, I'm not sure a judge would support the tenants rights in court. If however a landlord was requesting a visit every 2 weeks, giving only 12 hours notice every time and was not prepared to give a good reason for the visit, I'm sure the court would support the tenants' claim even if they had signed an agreement that the landlord could visit whenever he wanted.

What I really don't understand is why would a tenant actually refuse a visit, for which proper notice was given, that only happened say every 3 or 6 months? Even if the landlord can't enforce this, the landlord could refuse to renew the tenancy agreement when it comes to an end, what would the tenant gain from this if they are indeed so desperate for this property they are prepared to lie when signing the agreement? My agreement states that I only have to give 2 months notice, the tenants 1 to end the agreement. If they were to tell me next time that they are refusing a visit without a good reason, I certainly would become suspicious, suspicious enough that I might very well decide to end the lease. What is there to gain for a tenant?

birkee

Exactly what I had been trying to say with SIMPLE examples! Thanks FBaby!

I was just wondering how they would respond to those people charged with terrorism this week.
e.g. People making fertiliser bombs in their homes are entitled to quiet and peacefull enjoyment? Checks occasionally need to be made, because we know, that lawbreakers often keep a clean nose as regards renting of properties, to avoid drawing attention.

Then again, you talk about tenants knocking down an extension. Could also be 'building' an extension.
Protection of Tenants rights, and restriction of Landlords rights, could eventually result in VERY restricted numbers of properties to rent. This may also mean, only Tenants with a clean history, or, not renting to first timers.

Life is about negotiation, not about standing on a soapbox telling the world about YOUR rights. If they won't rent to you, who's interested in YOUR rights? Being homeless doesn't give you any rights.
So is it unreasonable to expect cooperation with a Landlords worries about their properties?

john539

birkee wrote: »

You continue to ignore the case of the immigrant family working the system don't you?
It went on for years, and they were discovered by accident.

You continue to give an opinion, which is overidden by actual cases, yet we still get YOUR opinion.

You can't legislate for everything, people have rights, we don't live in a police state.

It was discovered by ACCIDENT, so you can't draw any conclusions about anything.

birkee

john539 wrote: »

You can't legislate for everything, people have rights, we don't live in a police state.

It was discovered by ACCIDENT, so you can't draw any conclusions about anything.

Not even, that you can't trust a tenancy agreement as truth, and checks need to be made?
Not even that you can't trust all tenants, and checks may need to be made?
Yes, people have rights, to protect them from criminals and fraud.
No it's not a Police state, but the Police are needed for that.
It's a Police state if you break the law.
Try throwing a TV from an upstairs window towards somebody at your door, then telling the Police that we don't live in a Police state. :rotfl:

FBaby

Once I got stopped by the police to do a random alcohol check. I could have told him to get lost - politely!-, it was my right, but the consequences were not worth it, especially as I hadn't had a sip of alcohol for the previous few months (I don't drink)!

Oh and last time I flew to France, the security beeped when I went under it so got search. I could have said I was refusing to be touched, but I would have missed my flight explaining myself and well, once again, I had nothing to hide, so I gave the woman a big smile, opened my arms, and 2 minutes later it was all forgotten!!!

I really don't understand this concept of people screaming their rights when they have nothing to hide!

john539

birkee wrote: »

Not even, that you can't trust a tenancy agreement as truth, and checks need to be made?
Not even that you can't trust all tenants, and checks may need to be made?
Yes, people have rights, to protect them from criminals and fraud.
No it's not a Police state, but the Police are needed for that.
It's a Police state if you break the law.
Try throwing a TV from an upstairs window towards somebody at your door, then telling the Police that we don't live in a Police state. :rotfl:

You can keep prattling & rambling on this way & that.

So where we are ?

We have established from your example was discovered by ACCIDENT which is nothing to do with this thread, which is about LA occasionally checking with landlord, which is unlikely to be thing that caught your family out.