Council disclosed information to landlord

MissMoneypenny

FBaby wrote: »

This is the exact reason why insurers increase their premium for tenants on benefits.

I don't think it is just those on welfare or welfare top-ups that don't pay their rent or do a runner.

It's all very well landlords saying that they don't take DSA, but many people it seems, take LHA top-ups. From government quotes, it seems that those that don't claim any LHA, is way less than 50% and not every landlord will be able to get (and keep) the renters who claim no LHA/HB at all.

FBaby wrote: »

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.

They will never be out before 2 months, unless you pay them to leave. It's two months notice from the day before the contract rent day and then that is only notice to leave. From what a landlord on the renters board tells those who have been served a Section 21, they don't have to leave after 2 months. It seems that the only way to ensure a tenant is out before 2 months, is to pay them to leave. If a landlord has been unfair to the tenant, than it seems they can expect the same treatment in return.

FBaby wrote: »

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.

The working tenant can easily move to another cheaper or better property that they see, or may have to move areas for work. Those on LHA, tend to stay put. If you use an agent to find your tenants' then each move will cost you a fee to the agent and maybe a void too.

As insurers always seem to look for ways not to pay out, if i was still a landlord, I would ensure I had a policy that covered DSS.

I think it is interesting times ahead and that not havng DSS renters may be the least of the problems for some.

The last government ramped up the LHA payments over the last few years and some landlords raised their rents to that level. Now this government have reduced LHA payments and fixed the amount they will raise LHA every year, because of the massive bill to the taxpayers. Some landlords are unhappy at having to reduce their income, or having to top-up their own mortgages on their rentals and have said that they want the renter to pay LHA shortfalls from their other welfare payments, but they are being cut too. Just look at all the posts on here re EMA and child tax credits cuts.

For the supply and demand you talked about; everything is being changed with the new welfare bill to come in and the visa closures and visa changes, that will reduce the demand for rentals as these changes bite.

Add to this, those that have rented out a house 'until the market picks up', hoping to get 2007 house prices again, yet it seems that many can't pay their mortgage when interest rates rises a few points, let alone if it rises to the average 7%. How many years can they hang on?

Then there is National Hunter, which is being used by Experian for mortgage companies, to check the credit records of an address, where only the mortagee should be living; to find those who have secretly let their property. Terms of the mortgage means they can recall the mortgage or put an instant interest rate rise onto the mortgage.

Those (legal) professional landlords will be ok if they have owned their houses for years and haven't over -leveraged. Even that couple from Kent who were on tv as they had 700 plus houses, have got into trouble.

MissMoneypenny

Sixer wrote: »

- 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 guess it would need a barrister in housing law to answer this. I don't see how a tenancy contract can be broken if a tenant goes onto LHA as they have the covenant of quiet enjoyment of their home and it doesn't matter what is in a contract, if that clause is against the law.

What if a tenant becomes disabled and needs LHA? How would the relevant disablity organistaions react if the landlord tried to throw the tenant out of their home because their disablity meant they had to claim LHA?

birkee

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

But you can refuse to rent to them if they will not agree to your terms, which I assume, he would ask them to sign for.
If you sign away your legal rights, you can't complain to the courts afterwards.

MissMoneypenny

birkee wrote: »

But you can refuse to rent to them if they will not agree to your terms, which I assume, he would ask them to sign for.
If you sign away your legal rights, you can't complain to the courts afterwards.

The answer is in my quote that you quoted. Look at post 78 too.

That's why I suggested it might be better if you joined a landlords assocciation and get advice on what a landlord can and can't do.

birkee

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Not during a fixed rate tenancy.



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.

Why? I'm not a Landlord!
Why would it be breaking the law, if the Landlord insisted by contract signing, that the garden be kept neat and tidy for instance?
Yes, you can't have a contract saying the Landlord can kill and eat you, but then what sort of would be tenant would take a tenancy with a nutter like that? Another nutter?

FBaby

In the end, if the insurers are making the premium smaller for tenants who work, there is a clear reason....that working tenants are less likely to cost insurers money...

As for the two months, I of course refer to the two months after notice. Of course you wouldn't expect tenants to leave before their end of tenancy, so that would be two months+two months after which the insurance would start paying.

In the end, it didn't take me too long to find a tenant who worked and they made it very clear that they wanted it long term which they reinterated recently. They moved from their previous place because they wanted something bigger. The property is in a very attractive area, so always very popular with tenants and buyers so I'm not worried.

MissMoneypenny

birkee wrote: »

Why? I'm not a Landlord!
Why would it be breaking the law, if the Landlord insisted by contract signing, that the garden be kept neat and tidy for instance?

You can't tell someone how to live in their home because (as I keep saying) every tenant enjoys the covanent of quiet enjoyment.

I'm glad to hear you aren't a landlord; your lack the law was starting to worry me (for your sake).

birkee

john539 wrote: »

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.

Off track????
Wasn't the subject under discussion whether the HB payers had a right to check with a Landlord about rent charged.
The case I quoted was exactly that. Landlords and Tenants, and the fact that some people are being both.

The authorities have a right to check, which is how they exposed the family fraud ring quoted.
It seems you argue for the fraudsters to be allowed to continue unharrassed.
Off track?

birkee

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You can't tell someone how to live in their home because (as I keep saying) every tenant enjoys the covanent of quiet enjoyment.

I'm glad to hear you aren't a landlord; your lack the law was starting to worry me (for your sake).

And every Landlord has the right to insist on care of the property, not to carry out unauthorised alterations, and to maintain things like the garden.
You seem to be saying, that once they're in, they can do what the hell they like.
Look at the Council Tenants, who pay their rent on time, every time, but have made the neighbours lives a living hell. They've been kicked out. And also happening to private Tenants too.
(And for the person that quoted everyone having contracts, how many Council Tenants have written contracts?)

As usual, it's about YOUR rights, and not about equal rights for other people that you argue for.
And, it is THEIR home, as long as the Landlord allows it to be, within the contract period. When the contract ends, it is no longer THEIR home if the Landlord deems it so.

For Council Tenants, it is their home forever. Oh, hang on though, they are now talking about kicking them downstairs when the kids have left home aren't they?
But YOU are saying they can't do that.

MissMoneypenny

birkee wrote: »

And every Landlord has the right to insist on care of the property, not to carry out unauthorised alterations, and to maintain things like the garden.
You seem to be saying, that once they're in, they can do what the hell they like.

What I am saying is that the landlord can't tell a tenant how to live in their home as that is what the law states. However, the property has to be returned in the same condition, less fair wear and tear.

If a tenant moved in and never did any cleaning until the week before they left, then that is their choice; all they have to do is give the property back in the same condition they received it less fair wear and tear. If a landlord harrasses the tenant, then that is a criminal offence and councils are prosecuting landlords and letting agents for harassement. If landlords can't accept the housing laws, then don't be a landlord.

birkee wrote: »

As usual, it's about YOUR rights, and not about equal rights for other people that you argue for.

It's not my rights, as I'm a home owner and not a tenant. It's about the law and not what landlords or tenants think they can do. I have been a landlord once and a tenant once (when I moved to a different area), but have been a home owner for over 30 years.

Don't let my signature fool you. I started that thread as I was sick to the stomach of the continious threads from tenants who paid their rent and then found out the landlord hadn't paid the mortgage and hadn't been given permission to let their property. Tenants can protect themselves from these type of landlords who don't have permission to rent their proeprty, by checking before they rent. On average, I report 4 landlords a week, but National Hunter and Experian are catching much more than I am. I love technology.

birkee wrote: »

And, it is THEIR home, as long as the Landlord allows it to be, within the contract period. When the contract ends, it is no longer THEIR home if the Landlord deems it so.

Of course. When the tenant moves out, it is no longer their home; the same as when a home owner sells a house and moves. The landlord can then get another tenant and it becomes the new tenant's home.

birkee wrote: »

For Council Tenants, it is their home forever. Oh, hang on though, they are now talking about kicking them downstairs when the kids have left home aren't they?
But YOU are saying they can't do that.

No I didn't. You seem to be getting confused.

For new social housed tenants, I believe the home for life has gone now? I do agree that that those who live in a social house and have a family home, should be rehoused in a smaller house when their children leave home, so that a family can have the family sized house. Most homeowners downsize when their children leave home anyway.