Accused of abandoning council flat

izanc24

Thanks. The abandonment letter was the first letter I received. This stated the landlord (Council) had reason to believe I no longer live in my flat and it had been abandoned.

(There is no question of any sub-letting taking place and the flat has definitely not been abandoned).

RAS

Have you talked to your local councillor?

Is it possible that they came round to do repairs and your were not in, so someone reported it as unoccupied?

duchy

Is it possible that workmen didn't show up to do one of these repairs and listed the job as not completed on their paperwork either by accident as unoccupied (ticked the wrong box) or by design (claimed it was unoccupied rather than they took time off/spent too much time on a previous job)
Just a thought.

princeofpounds

Is it possible that workmen didn't show up to do one of these repairs and listed the job as not completed on their paperwork either by accident as unoccupied (ticked the wrong box) or by design (claimed it was unoccupied rather than they took time off/spent too much time on a previous job)
Just a thought.

This is pretty likely given what you have said.

I think everyone is getting hyped up here. Let's face it, council house fraud is a very serious problem and auditing suspicious tenancies is merely being responsible to taxpayers and those in genuine need, not bullying or harrassment.

In the private sector inspections are permitted with 24 hours written notice and tenancies 'audited' (or re-examined) every 6-12 months on average. That's just landlords managing their housing stock.

Perhaps in this particular case they have got some facts wrong at some point along the line, and certainly their lack of 'customer relations' is evident. But if this ie your main home then you clearly don't have anything to worry about, let them tick their boxes and get on with life.

boo2410

I agree with Princeofpounds, just show them utility bills with your name on them as proof that you live there, along with maybe a bank statement or other post and then that'll be the end of it.

Councils/HA's do have to check on tenancies as so many are sub-let, as said previously, providing this is your priciple home and you hold no other tenancy then you really have nothing to worry about.

propertyman

I still disagree. Whether private or council, an unfounded accusation is bound to be upsetting especially if it is malicious.

But there is another important aspect; a lot of people are in social housing because they are vulnerable, unable to cope as well with life, through bad experiences eg domestic violence, illness and age.

A random visitor knocks on the door, the person is afraid to answer, and the next thing they are threatened with eviction?:eek:

If that was your elderly Grandad or Sister who has fled an abusive husband, you would be furious. They may have no one to turn to!

Councils should know better and should stop this invasive sneaky and frightening approach.

If they are going to do it do it properly.

princeofpounds

I agree councils should stop being frightening. Often it seems to be a byproduct of automated processes and letters, which means that there is little explanation of the context of any requests.

However, they are not being threatened with eviction. They are being threatened with a tenancy audit, i.e. an inspection. There is a chasm of difference between the two.

propertyman

princeofpounds wrote: »

However, they are not being threatened with eviction. They are being threatened with a tenancy audit, i.e. an inspection. There is a chasm of difference between the two.

That's not correct the guidance requires that the consequences are set out and I have seen a couple of these letters brought into free housing advice clinics.

With my work hat on I have met one former housing officer who is now with an RSL who explained that their council had targeted each officer to generate letters as part of "changing the culture" of illegal sublets with no regard to the consequences.

This sort of behaviour is vilified in the private sector, but there is a far greater likelihood that a vulerable person is victimised.

The way to manage social housing is to get back to managing it, not the overreaching and underachieving culture it has.

And finally don't blame automated letters, someone takes the decision to issue those they are the ones that should be made to go and apologise to the terrified 82 year old Jewish lady with her niece, scared she is going to be made homeless having flashbacks to her childhood in Occupied Poland through having to have her papers checked.

princeofpounds

That's not correct the guidance requires that the consequences are set out and I have seen a couple of these letters brought into free housing advice clinics.

Yes the consequences of failing the inspection, not the consequences of the inspection itself.

Totally get your point that the communication could be frightening. Totally get your point that automated letters are someone's responsibility (and note I did not blame them, I was just explaining why they sometimes seem terribly blunt).

But I would refuse to get hysterical about the idea of an actual inspection.

KittyLady

Years back I had exactly the same thing happen to me, dspite me going and demanding to know what they were playing at they dragged me down to the local magistrate courts where I explained that as a bored lonely single mother I had this horrible habit of going out during the day to wander round windowshopping, or sometimes spend the day with my friends. They laughed it out of the building and the council chap looked rather sheepish.