Council disclosed information to landlord

john539

FBaby wrote: »

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?

This is going nowhere.

We haven't got anything that says anything is invalid because a tenant is not working or claiming benefits.

Yes, yes, yes landlords will likely prefer working tenants who aren't claiming benefits. So will insurers & mortgage providers.

Yes, landlords will check tenants are working or not beforehand.

But tenants lose jobs and may not tell landlords they are claiming benefits.

How can the landlord control something they don't about like a tenant losing their job or they are claiming partial/full housing benefit/LHA.

What you think is right & what a tenant thinks is right are 2 different things.

birkee

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

That was the point!
If they set unacceptable terms, and you don't like them, they won't rent to you.
There's nothing to say they have to.

birkee

john539 wrote: »

What are you rambling on about ?

Normal tenants & normal landlords.

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

My rambling?
I'm not even sure what you said there!

Just for insight. There was a cases(s) this year (think it was a Sri-Lankan family. Not as racist, but to indicate that if immigrants can con the system, don't be surprised that others do.)
The extended family were ALL house owners, all renting to each other, and all claiming housing benefit as tenants.) They were making a fortune, driving top of the range cars, and doing other work too.

And you quote "normal" tenants and Landlords?

You want tax payers money....you give us a damn good reason why!
Sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but if you don't like it, you don't have to claim.

birkee

Macro wrote: »

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).

So they DO confirm the rent with the Landlord. So why am I wrong?

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.

The figures I used were an example to indicate a point, so quoting them back to me is nonsense.
Lets say the rent is £500, and the landlord says £600. That's a hundred pounds to go halves on.

You tell me, that you can spot the difference between a £500 and a £600 property. That could be exactly the same place, but one version in better condition than the other. One nearer better facilities. One nearer unpleasant neighbours.
Or, you get an upstairs section of a terrace house in London, or three houses in the North for the same money.
You don't talk acceptable rent for the property, but "30% centile of BRMA"?
If it's a dump, at £100 pm, and the Landlord says it's £500? Do they exceed the percentile rate?

birkee

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

That's up to the Landlord to decide isn't it?
Can they increase the rent, to cover extra insurance?
Is it a 3 month contract that the Landlord can terminate?

Who has a tenancy agreement that doesn't nulify it if certain events occur?
What happens if the tenant goes to prison for life?
We keep paying the rent maybe, because it's a "fixed tenancy contract"?

birkee

john539 wrote: »

This is going nowhere.

We haven't got anything that says anything is invalid because a tenant is not working or claiming benefits.

Yes, yes, yes landlords will likely prefer working tenants who aren't claiming benefits. So will insurers & mortgage providers.

Yes, landlords will check tenants are working or not beforehand.

But tenants lose jobs and may not tell landlords they are claiming benefits.

How can the landlord control something they don't about like a tenant losing their job or they are claiming partial/full housing benefit/LHA.

What you think is right & what a tenant thinks is right are 2 different things.

And you make NO allowance for a tenant becoming undesireable because of changes since the contract was agreed?
It's what the Landlord can do about it,.... and what the tenant 'thinks'.... is irrelevant.

e.g. "Undesirable",
in the cases being talked about:-Unemployed.
Or, they start selling and repairing old bangers from the property, or they generate loads of complaints from neighbours. or they make all the paintwork tartan.

or, the tenant being charged with rape, or armed robbery, or the great joy, Arson!
And it doesn't matter what the Landlord thinks?
They will be out at the first opportunity, regardless of what the Tenant thinks.

Marisco

I'm not sure I understand your point birkee??? Are you saying that a tenant who was working and was a good tenant, suddenly becomes "undesirable" if they lose their job? If that is the "general" attitude, then is it any wonder tenants will not inform the LL they have lost their jobs?

birkee

Marisco wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your point birkee??? Are you saying that a tenant who was working and was a good tenant, suddenly becomes "undesirable" if they lose their job? If that is the "general" attitude, then is it any wonder tenants will not inform the LL they have lost their jobs?

Not really Marisco.
The point was, that what is classed as "undesirable" is within the Landlords discretion.
If he doesn't want someone unemployed in his property, then he will see them out by the most convenient way.

What I am NOT saying is, that it would be fair to do so.

Sixer

I still don't understand how an insurance policy can have an enforceable clause banning benefits claimants as tenants if either of the following are true:

Tenant is working and only claiming top-up LHA/HB.
Tenant is working at the start of the tenancy, loses their job or gets put on short hours, and claims part way through.

FBaby

john539 wrote: »

This is going nowhere.

We haven't got anything that says anything is invalid because a tenant is not working or claiming benefits.

Yes, yes, yes landlords will likely prefer working tenants who aren't claiming benefits. So will insurers & mortgage providers.

Yes, landlords will check tenants are working or not beforehand.

But tenants lose jobs and may not tell landlords they are claiming benefits.

How can the landlord control something they don't about like a tenant losing their job or they are claiming partial/full housing benefit/LHA.

What you think is right & what a tenant thinks is right are 2 different things.

I expect it's like ciritical illness insurance. You are insured on the basis of the disclosure at the time of applying for the insurance. If you get some illness after that, that later might have an impact on your claim, you are still protected.

If my tenants were to lose their job, came to me and explained the situation, of course I would still keep them as tenants if they continued to pay. They are good tenants and I have no complaints about them. They did have a job so don't expect to live off benefits. There is a line between not wanting to take someone on benefits because you don't know them personally and supporting a family that loses employment who you got to know a bit better.