Council disclosed information to landlord

MissMoneypenny

birkee wrote: »

If the Landlord says you remove your shoes on entering the house to protect carpets, then DON'T rent from him.

That would be an unenforceable part of the contract. The landlord cannot tell a tenant how to live in their home (although it seems that some hope they can) as every tenant has the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

The use of shoes on a carpet would come under fair wear and tear for the return of the deposit i.e. a tenant returns the house in the same condition they received it; less fair wear and tear.

john539

birkee wrote: »

Now can all the renters who don't have a written tenancy agreement make contact please
And if you do, has it been updated following any changes?

Quote: john39.
The tenant can't just makeup a figure which council will accept unless you think both tenant & council are stupid.

Exactly. and there are more than enough stupid and or dishonest people to go round. Not to mention that there will be Landlords prepared to say he charges £1000 pm, and split the difference with the tennant (family member perhaps?) But if the Landlord makes a statement about the rent he charges, and is then later found to have been lying. he also faces prosecution.

What are you rambling on about ?

Normal tenants & normal landlords.

Landlord & tenant/family committing deliberate fraud which normal checks cannot catch.

Careful_with_that_Axe

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

There was a discussion on the renting board a few months ago about a website where some landlords are posting their tenants private details, including thir date of birth and National Insurance numbers.:eek:

Here is the link to the thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2630339

Thanks for the answers to my question. I thought it was an interesting point coming from the other side of the fence as it were. Just read that thread. Wow!

Don't mean to derail the thread and take away from OP's post, but it's an interesting, if somewhat grey area.

Macro_3

birkee wrote: »

Did you not read post #3?

They need the Landlord to confirm the amount of rent claimed for.
Rent £500 pm,....... claimed for £1000 pm.
How would YOU deal with it?

I did read post three. It's incorrect.

As a housing benefits assessor, I deal with it by checking the tenancy agreement and requesting proof of the amount of money that was changing hands (most tenants pay via standing order/direct debit so it's easy to see a pattern of payments - those that don't pay via standing order tend to be the sort of tenants who perhaps don't have access to bank accounts etc/normal financial circs so tend to rent more from landlords who are accepting of benefits, therefore confirming rent with the landlord in those cases is not so much a problem).

It also stands to reason that if a landlord has a property to rent they will tend to charge the going rate. If the going rate for a 3-bed property is £500pcm and a tenant claims that they are paying £1000 pcm, they would fall foul of the max LHA rate anyway - which at 30% centile of BRMA rents would be likely to be less than the £500pcm in the first place.

Macro_3

birkee wrote: »

Why do so many people believe the world owes them a living?

If the Landlord can't confirm he meets the terms of his insurance, then it would make no sense to rent out his property to him.
Let them go homeless as a result?

You say "stuff the Landlord" and the Landlord will say "stuff you" unless you comply with HIS / HER terms.
If the Landlord says you remove your shoes on entering the house to protect carpets, then DON'T rent from him.
Why should he care if you're homeless? There's always people to rent to who WILL meet his / her criteria.

You might need to clarify what you're trying to say here because it doesn't make sense.

FBaby

john539 wrote: »

Credit referencing won't tell you they are on HB/LHA.

What is the wording ?

Only just got back to this thread. The wording is actually asking if the tenant is employed, so I supposed it would be valid if on low salary receiving benefits.

If they were then to lose their job, it would be a matter for the landlord to inform the insurance. How the landlord is supposed to find out? I think a landlord is in a right to ask this information at any time, not just at the time of agreeing the tenancy, but maybe I'm wrong?

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

Is it any wonder claimants don't say anything?? Everywhere you look it's "no DSS"!! Where are these people suppose to live, given the state of social housing? When I first moved up here, I had to claim HB, as I'd just moved and had no job. I never told my LL either! I had enough money for bond etc, and a couple of months rent while the claim went through. What choice did I have, I had to have somewhere to live!! I was not willing to live in areas that did take DSS!!

No offense but as much as it is your choice not to live in an area that takes DSS mainly, it is any landlord choice not to take people in receipt of DSS. This was my choice and I was able to make it because they were family interested in paying the rent for the property who were employed. In my case, it wasn't as much the worry about the rent not being paid (as really that can happen with anyone), but the fact that I'd been a single mum of two young children receiving no maintenance for most of the time and had to work like crazy to keep my house. I had to make many sacrifices for it, mainly the fact I had no social life at all and I didn't get to spend as much time with my children as I'd wish. I took great care and pride in having my own house and spending whatever I managed to get leftover to keep it in good order. To be honest, it hurt me to think that a family not working could enjoy the same comfort. Of course, the difference is that I owned the house, but in day to day life, they were still enjoying for free what I worked 10 hours a day to enjoy.

I'm not saying that this is the right attitude, but it was as I felt and therefore my rights to be subjective about who to rent to. I am very pleased with my tenants.

FBaby

Macro wrote: »

You might need to clarify what you're trying to say here because it doesn't make sense.

It does make perfect sense. It's a question of supply and demand. If there are more demand for nice rental property than properties avaiable, than the landlord will have the luxury to be selective, and chose an employed tenant over one who relies on benefits to pay the rent.

MissMoneypenny

FBaby wrote: »

It does make perfect sense. It's a question of supply and demand. If there are more demand for nice rental property than properties avaiable, than the landlord will have the luxury to be selective, and chose an employed tenant over one who relies on benefits to pay the rent.

Which brings us to full circle with "what happens if that tenant then loses their job and is in a fixed tenancy contract"?

The supply and demand thing is quite interesting as it works both ways. The government claim they pay 40% of all rents and then (I assume) top-up rent for many others. That would suggest that there is a lot less than 50% who pay all their own rent.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

No offense but as much as it is your choice not to live in an area that takes DSS mainly, it is any landlord choice not to take people in receipt of DSS. This was my choice and I was able to make it because they were family interested in paying the rent for the property who were employed. In my case, it wasn't as much the worry about the rent not being paid (as really that can happen with anyone), but the fact that I'd been a single mum of two young children receiving no maintenance for most of the time and had to work like crazy to keep my house. I had to make many sacrifices for it, mainly the fact I had no social life at all and I didn't get to spend as much time with my children as I'd wish. I took great care and pride in having my own house and spending whatever I managed to get leftover to keep it in good order. To be honest, it hurt me to think that a family not working could enjoy the same comfort. Of course, the difference is that I owned the house, but in day to day life, they were still enjoying for free what I worked 10 hours a day to enjoy.

I'm not saying that this is the right attitude, but it was as I felt and therefore my rights to be subjective about who to rent to. I am very pleased with my tenants.

No offence taken:) But I was just divorced after 25 years, and had a good standard of living and nice house. I was not your "sterotypical" DSS claimant, so I was not willing to go to a grotty bedsit etc. As I was able to pay the bond and would have been able to pay the rent until I either got a job or the HB kicked in (whichever came first) I saw no need to tell my LL. If I was working and then lost my job, I wouldn't tell my LL then either, unless I had a cast iron guarantee that I wouldn't be hoyed out!