Council disclosed information to landlord

FBaby

Sixer wrote: »

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.

I suppose it's like car insurance and all the statistics the companies spend much on to show that certain people are more/less likely to make claims.

One aspect of my letting insurance is that they will pay all legal fees if I need to evict my tenants. Maybe their is evidence that is more likely to happen with people who are not employed? That those who haven't had a job a some time/never are also more likely to have to be taken to court than those with a job, but who then loses that job? Of course it is relative as you can be looking for a property in between jobs just like one might have just had a job after 10 years on DSS. They have to draw the line somewhere.

All this is supposition, I really have no idea how most insurance companies have come about to state that there is a premium to pay if tenants are not in employment.

MissMoneypenny

Sixer wrote: »

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.

[FONT=&quot]I don't think a landlord will be able to remove a tenant when they are on a fixed term contract just because the tenant starts to claim LHA/HB, as every tenant has the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] covenant[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of quiet enjoyment of their home (the same law that stops a landlord/letting agent/landlord’s workmen, from entering the property without the tenant's permission).

Even if the tenant is on a periodical tenancy (1 months notice from the tenant, 2 month notice form the landlord) the landlord will still have to give a Section 21 notice from the day before the rent is due and that would give the tenant at least 2 months notice to move. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Even after a correct Section 21 is served, the tenant doesn't have to leave after 2 months, as they can drag out a few more months while the landlord has to return to court. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Plus and extra two months to leave on top of all this, if the landlord hadn't served a correct Section 21 or hadn't protected the tenant's full deposit in one of the 2 schemes.

On a fixed term contract, if the council is late with the rent and the tenant falls 2 months behind with the rent as the council is late paying LHA, the landlord can apply to court to remove the tenant. However, all the tenant has to do is just reduce the amount of rent owed by a few quid, to bring the amount to just below 2 months rent owed, and the case will be thrown out of court. They can carry on like that.

It seems to me that the insurers have a lot of get-outs in not paying out on a landlords insurance claim, between; landlords who find themselves with a tenant going onto LHA; landlords who don't find out their tenant is on LHA; landlords who don't have Consent to Let from their mortgage lender; landlords who[/FONT][FONT=&quot] fraudulently[/FONT][FONT=&quot] obtained a residential mortgage to avoid applying for a more expensive Buy to Let mortgage[/FONT]

Macro_3

birkee wrote: »

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?

No, that isn't what I said.

I give up.

MissMoneypenny

cakey wrote: »

they wouldn't be able to tell if i left my job the next week, all am saying that if your situation changed whilst you are renting and you needed to claim HB or LHA it states you must update them. If i didn't i am in breach of contract.

A landlord who doesn't do/is slow to do, his reapirs is in breach of contract too, but nothing happens to the contract. Just look at all the posts on the house buying and renting boards from people with problem landlords.

MissMoneypenny

Careful_with_that_Axe wrote: »

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.

I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to publish someones private details on the internet, but it makes you realise that there are those that out there who are that stupid;and that tenants should always take out legal insurance with their house contents insurance, in case they need to take an ex landlord to court.

It also makes me wonder how many of those landords and letting agents are complying with their legal obligation of registering with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they handle people personal information.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/47136307#Comment_47136307

MissMoneypenny

birkee wrote: »

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.

You need to be aware that you can't take away someones legal rights, with a contract. Some contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on.

MissMoneypenny

birkee wrote: »

That's up to the Landlord to decide isn't it?
Can they increase the rent, to cover extra insurance?

Not during a fixed rate tenancy.

birkee wrote: »

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"?

I think you may need to join the landlords association. You can't make your own rules up and stick them in a contract - well you can, but don't expect the law to be on your side when you break the laws of the country. Remember the guy who had a contract with someone saying that he could kill and eat him? - He went to prison. Some landlords have ended up in court/prison for breaking the law.

Google words like, landlord prison jail court and you will get in excess of 20 million hits.

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]I don't think a landlord will be able to remove a tenant when they are on a fixed term contract just because the tenant starts to claim LHA/HB, as every tenant has the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] covenant[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of quiet enjoyment of their home (the same law that stops a landlord/letting agent/landlord’s workmen, from entering the property without the tenant's permission).

Even if the tenant is on a periodical tenancy (1 months notice from the tenant, 2 month notice form the landlord) the landlord will still have to give a Section 21 notice from the day before the rent is due and that would give the tenant at least 2 months notice to move. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Even after a correct Section 21 is served, the tenant doesn't have to leave after 2 months, as they can drag out a few more months while the landlord has to return to court. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Plus and extra two months to leave on top of all this, if the landlord hadn't served a correct Section 21 or hadn't protected the tenant's full deposit in one of the 2 schemes.

On a fixed term contract, if the council is late with the rent and the tenant falls 2 months behind with the rent as the council is late paying LHA, the landlord can apply to court to remove the tenant. However, all the tenant has to do is just reduce the amount of rent owed by a few quid, to bring the amount to just below 2 months rent owed, and the case will be thrown out of court. They can carry on like that.

It seems to me that the insurers have a lot of get-outs in not paying out on a landlords insurance claim, between; landlords who find themselves with a tenant going onto LHA; landlords who don't find out their tenant is on LHA; landlords who don't have Consent to Let from their mortgage lender; landlords who[/FONT][FONT=&quot] fraudulently[/FONT][FONT=&quot] obtained a residential mortgage to avoid applying for a more expensive Buy to Let mortgage[/FONT]

Thanks, very helpful.

I guess what I'm also asking is this:

Can an insurer deem insurance invalid if the tenants go onto LHA part way through the tenancy and don't inform the landlord? In instances where a claim on the insurance would be made? Landlords on here are insisting that their insurance would become invalid in such cases, but I don't see how they could be - I can see a tenancy agreement could be broken, but not how insurance could become invalid in any sense that it's the landlord's responsibility.

I'd really like to see the policy wording from a landlord with such insurance. I genuinely don't see how such a clause would be enforceable in law.

FBaby

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]I don't think a landlord will be able to remove a tenant when they are on a fixed term contract just because the tenant starts to claim LHA/HB, as every tenant has the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] covenant[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of quiet enjoyment of their home (the same law that stops a landlord/letting agent/landlord’s workmen, from entering the property without the tenant's permission). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Even if the tenant is on a periodical tenancy (1 months notice from the tenant, 2 month notice form the landlord) the landlord will still have to give a Section 21 notice from the day before the rent is due and that would give the tenant at least 2 months notice to move. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Even after a correct Section 21 is served, the tenant doesn't have to leave after 2 months, as they can drag out a few more months while the landlord has to return to court. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Plus and extra two months to leave on top of all this, if the landlord hadn't served a correct Section 21 or hadn't protected the tenant's full deposit in one of the 2 schemes. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On a fixed term contract, if the council is late with the rent and the tenant falls 2 months behind with the rent as the council is late paying LHA, the landlord can apply to court to remove the tenant. However, all the tenant has to do is just reduce the amount of rent owed by a few quid, to bring the amount to just below 2 months rent owed, and the case will be thrown out of court. They can carry on like that.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It seems to me that the insurers have a lot of get-outs in not paying out on a landlords insurance claim, between; landlords who find themselves with a tenant going onto LHA; landlords who don't find out their tenant is on LHA; landlords who don't have Consent to Let from their mortgage lender; landlords who[/FONT][FONT=&quot] fraudulently[/FONT][FONT=&quot] obtained a residential mortgage to avoid applying for a more expensive Buy to Let mortgage[/FONT]

This is the exact reason why insurers increase their premium for tenants on benefits. Again, the insurance is valid as per the infomation given at the time of signing up for the insurance. My insurance will pay to take tenants to court and will pay for loss of rent after 2 months. They therefore have all to gain from making sure that the tenants are out before two months.

There is never any garantee that a working tenant won't one day be made redundant, but there is more chances that they will find another job shortly afterwards at a certain level of pay than someone on long term benefits.

john539

birkee wrote: »

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.

Don't go off track onto something else.

This is deliberate fraud between people that know each other.

This could happen anywhere in any industry where a group of people collude.