Accused of abandoning council flat

propertyman

Interestingly the tenancy audit is not binding in law and are only contractually binding if you have a more modern tenancy.

I would be tempted to reply.

"You have made allegations over my residence at the property.

I am confirming that this is my only residence. Should you wish to persist you must state the basis of the allegation that you have made so that
a: I can, if applicable, take action against the source of the information for harassment
b: take action against you for harassment and a breach of quiet enjoyment and seek appropriate damages for doing so without foundation.

I am prepared to meet your representative at my home should you first respond to the above and be accompanied by a surveyor to inspect the outstanding repair issues ( list ) and has the authority to instruct works."

I fully support the need to eliminate 2 homes living and sublets in social housing, but outright fishing expedition- unacceptable.

propertyman

BigAunty wrote: »

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1396431.pdf

I see that document suggests that on visits that post etc is checked to see if it is addressed to someone else. :eek:

Were I in that situation there would be one housing officer picking themselves up off the pavement outside before they knew what hit them. And then head slapped with proceedings.

It suggests that a factor is someone not being at home when you expect them to be home - how is that a council knows anything about a person's job or social life?

real1314

propertyman wrote: »

I see that document suggests that on visits that post etc is checked to see if it is addressed to someone else. :eek:

Were I in that situation there would be one housing officer picking themselves up off the pavement outside before they knew what hit them. And then head slapped with proceedings.

It suggests that a factor is someone not being at home when you expect them to be home - how is that a council knows anything about a person's job or social life?

And you would be speaking to your solicitor from a police cell, they could even help with your attempt to defend an assault case.

Why do you think it's acceptable to suggest that violence is an acceptable response? Would you like it if you were assaulted if you did something unacceptable in your job?

This sort of post makes you sound like a meat headed bully, which was maybe not what you intended? :cool:

propertyman

real1314 wrote: »

And you would be speaking to your solicitor from a police cell, they could even help with your attempt to defend an assault case.

Why do you think it's acceptable to suggest that violence is an acceptable response? Would you like it if you were assaulted if you did something unacceptable in your job?

This sort of post makes you sound like a meat headed bully, which was maybe not what you intended? :cool:

So reasonable force to eject a person or persons violating your human right to privacy , is less acceptable than harassment a breach of quiet enjoyment and invasive and despicable rifling through personal and confidential paper work based on the suspicions of a poorly trained low paid administrator, using random prejudices or supposition as a basis?

It is a person's home not an at will licence and their individual security privacy and right to a home should not be turned inside out and their photo taken to satisfy a rumour.

The Police could not do it without a warrant, but it's ok if you are a council tenant? *

A meat headed bully versus a paperwork wielding one.. hmm

Having nothing to fear you have nothing to hide perhaps?
Well the government that knows everything about you can do anything to you. And that's one of the undeniable truths.


* I seem to remember my parents telling me about that and something about a 6 year war about that sort of philosophy; how soon we forget

propertyman

real1314 wrote: »

Why do you think it's acceptable to suggest that violence is an acceptable response? Would you like it if you were assaulted if you did something unacceptable in your job?

As I am rather large, I am not sure - it never happens...:cool:

Everyone who knows me knows I am a gentle giant and a complete softy, until faced with laziness or blistering stupidity, usually the public sector paper pushing slackers, or those silly pull off tabs on Mentos Mints that keep breaking!!!!!!!

lighting_up_the_chalice

propertyman wrote: »

As I am rather large, I am not sure - it never happens...:cool:

Everyone who knows me knows I am a gentle giant and a complete softy, until faced with laziness or blistering stupidity, usually the public sector paper pushing slackers, or those silly pull off tabs on Mentos Mints that keep breaking!!!!!!!

With respect, the very reason that this accommodation may have been available to you in the first place may have been the result of your councils rigorous attitude to allegations/suspicions of abandonment. Single person accommodations is the most likely to be unoccupied, thanks to the way that the benefit system reduces payments for co-habiting couples compared to those "living apart".

With the current pressures on social housing, soon to be made even worse by changes to the benefits allowed for under 35s, I would have thought that any right minded person would support such a robust approach lead by concerns from within the community?

Then again, perhaps we aren't all as short sited (or potentially violent) as your good self?

propertyman

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

With respect, the very reason that this accommodation may have been available to you

You misunderstand I am not the OP nor in that situation.

Sadly you have fallen in the trap along with many in reading posts to suit the point you want to make.

Is being poor and vulnerable a basis to allow personal privacy to be ignored?

They might rifle through the post while a nice person makes tea, but might not if they were afraid.

Is that what you are proposing, the soft targets. And trust me the targets for achieving this will be set well below the real extent of the problem and local targets satisfied through the soft touches.

Action from within the communities has been the precursor for some of the worst abuses by the right minded - we are having it tough lets pick on the scroungers.

How about doing it properly and openly under government control

-Legislation for mandatory annual audits

-(Say) Experian run checks on the data bases

- Accelerated mandatory court seizure of the property and rental income

But no politician has the bravery to do it.

jamie11

I have a friend that lives in a council flat, sometimes. He spends a minimum of 4.5 -5 months a year staying here in Spain with my wife and me, then for another 3-4 months during the year he slopes off to California to stay with another friend in LA, he pays up all the rent before he goes.

He could be accused of exactly the same thing based on his traveling habits, but as a retired pensioner why should he not?

izanc24

Thanks. I did write to the Council (landlord) immediately. I asked them to let me know in writing what reasons they have to believe I no longer live at the property. (They can have no valid reasons as I am in the property every day - day and night). They did not answer this question. Instead they requested a Tenancy Audit.

I thought this was compulsory? I wrote back to the Council and suggested a date they could visit if a Tenancy Audit is compulsory. I also asked again what reasons they have for believing I no longer live at my property. They have confirmed via email they will attend to carry out a Tenancy Audit but have not given any reasons for believing the property to be abandoned. They have stated they are carrying out audits in my area and an "abandonment letter" is the standard requirement if they get no contact with a tenant. (I have spoken to other people in this area and they have not received a visit or Tenancy Audit request from landlord).

I feel the approach is one of harrassment and intrusion. I didn't think a local authority could send a letter to a tenant stating they have reasons to believe you are no longer living at the property and have abandoned it. And failure to respond to the letter in 7 days will result in legal action being taken to repossess the property. Yet supply no reasons for believing the property to be abandoned (which it isn't).

propertyman

The obligation it mange housing stock is a legal requirement but a tenancy audit is not compulsory, it is simply a tool.

The question you have is that since many councils are idiotic*, staffed by jobsworths, you are more likley to end up with a fully trained drone, rather than someone with an ounce of sense ( or should that now be milligram) who follows the procedure knowing that culpability is far beyond their pay grade and protected by a memo, and pass it over to "legal".

While you can fight it and make a good claim for damages do you want to ?

You of course have to explain why there was "no contact" leading to the abandonment letter, and the threat of legal proceedings, which the court will of course take avery dim view of.

You couold use the formal complaint procedure setting out your concerns that you are being harrassed, what criteria there is for no contact, conformation from a senior executive that audits are being carried out, and by whom and when they were authorised and concern that you are being targeted by someone and that they are party to harassment.

If you are subletting then be warned they will find out, and the penalties will be well deserved.


* The proof is all they need do is exercise the statutory and/or contractual rights to enter and inspect. Do'h.