Live in council house but rent out my home

Morlock

Tottyshouse wrote: »

I can assure you it is not rubbish. All he had to claim was he lived in his employer's property for work and his Trust property was still his main residence. Impossible to prove otherwise. He paid his rent. He paid his council tax. He was allowed to retain his tenancy. If you had even the slightest experience of any subject you seem to think you are an expert in (which seems to be every subject going from your posts) you would know the difference between knowing and proving something are worlds apart.

But your post implied that it was an acceptable arrangement and the Housing Trust could do nothing about it. The fact being that the trust could not prove a fraudulent tenancy, so could not evict on those grounds. Which is a big difference.

Tottyshouse wrote: »

Off you trot now and try and and find some statistics on google to back up your assertion.

Aw, are you still having difficulty understanding 'official figures'? You'll get it one day.

Morlock

Tottyshouse wrote: »

Rent arrears are apparently a grounds for eviction - it is very difficult to get an evicition on those grounds alone.

It is odd how rent arrears are the main cause for evictions, considering that it is 'very difficult' to be evicted for rent arrears.

Tottyshouse

Morlock wrote: »

But your post implied that it was an acceptable arrangement and the Housing Trust could do nothing about it. The fact being that the trust could not prove a fraudulent tenancy, so could not evict on those grounds. Which is a big difference.



Aw, are you still having difficulty understanding 'official figures'? You'll get it one day.

Why bother with "official figures" when you can clearly read my mind? I did not imply it was an acceptable arrangement. I stated the facts- He lived and worked 300 miles away. We could not evict him. Facts. Just because I did not furnish my post with every last minute detail of that particular case (we came close to getting a possession order based on an expired CP12) but why would I?

I think you are the one who seems to have trouble understanding "official figures" are manipulated as easily as any other figures. Perhaps if you got out there and got yourself a bit of life and work experience you may grasp this fact. I mean after all you are the one who had asserted government policy is based on such "official statistics" and of course there could be no way "official stats" could be manipulated in order to justify Government policy is there?

Perish the thought government's - like any other organisation have agendas and will create and manipulate these figures as they see fit. But I bet there's nothing anywhere is these "official" figures that hint a that so it abolutely cannot be true can it? It would surely say so on your online bible Google!

Tottyshouse

Morlock wrote: »

It is odd how rent arrears are the main cause for evictions, considering that it is 'very difficult' to be evicted for rent arrears.

Did I say anywhere it is impossible to evict for rent arrears? No. I stated and stand by the fact it is very very difficult. If you trot off and trawl through some of the "official" stats you are so fond of you will see for every possession order granted for arrears - the tenant will have had god knows how many suspended possession notices stretching back years. Same for anti social behaviour.

Even when they fail to comply with terms of the suspended order and are taken back to court, Judges still don't evict. It will take many trips to court and thousands in legal fees so get someone out for rent arrears.

Once gain - you embarrass yourself with your utter lack of actual experience in matters you seem to think you have some sort of expertise in. I await your bitingly insightful reply with baited breath..

Morlock

Tottyshouse wrote: »

Why bother with "official figures" when you can clearly read my mind? I did not imply it was an acceptable arrangement. I stated the facts- He lived and worked 300 miles away. We could not evict him. Facts. Just because I did not furnish my post with every last minute detail of that particular case (we came close to getting a possession order based on an expired CP12) but why would I?

You stated that "there was absolutely nothing we could do about this tenant", which implies that the arrangement was permissible. If the trust had proved his circumstances were as you claimed, he could have been evicted.

Tottyshouse wrote: »

Perhaps if you got out there and got yourself a bit of life and work experience you may grasp this fact.

You are very condescending, based on nothing but assumptions.

Tottyshouse wrote: »

Perish the thought government's - like any other organisation have agendas and will create and manipulate these figures as they see fit. But I bet there's nothing anywhere is these "official" figures that hint a that so it abolutely cannot be true can it? It would surely say so on your online bible Google!

Whether they are manipulated or not, and I am well aware that they can be, thank-you, they are still official figures, so are very relevant. Dismiss those figures as much as you like, but unless you or anyone else can prove otherwise, those figures are considered to be reliable evidence. Oh, and by the way, I don't use Google.

underling

My rent is £82pw and my lodger pays me 75pw as this is the shared accommodation rate for the area. When we move to the two bed place I’ll charge him a bit more (he can afford from his generous disability benefits. I could easily rent a room out in this area for £120+ so he’s getting a good deal really.

Tottyshouse

Morlock wrote: »

You stated that "there was absolutely nothing we could do about this tenant", which implies that the arrangement was permissible. If the trust had proved his circumstances were as you claimed, he could have been evicted.



You are very condescending, based on nothing but assumptions.



Whether they are manipulated or not, and I am well aware that they can be, thank-you, they are still official figures, so are very relevant. Dismiss those figures as much as you like, but unless you or anyone else can prove otherwise, those figures are considered to be reliable evidence. Oh, and by the way, I don't use Google.

Ooh excuse me I am laughing at the irony here - me assuming things? Didn't you assume I meant something in a post I did not? Mmmm yup absolutely.

As for the other parts you have quoted, I am sorry but that is your basic inability to understand a simple post. I said there was nothing we could. There WAS nothing we could do. We knew he wasn't living there (he had previously sublet it and we had been refused a possession order on those grounds - he just removed his "tenant").

He knew we knew he wasn't living there. He admitted it in telephone conversations to several members of staff, but again without actual hard documentary proof he was not living there we could not get a possession order. He paid his rent. He paid his council tax. That was documentary proof to the courts he did "live" there. He admitted he worked elsewhere but claimed in interview he returned regularly to the property and he himself was an exluded occupier in his "work" home. In the fairy tale la la land of Housing Law as taught in books when doing your MA in Housing Studies (which I assume you have) we should have been able to do something. In actual harsh everyday living reality there was nothing we could do to evict this tenant.

However when I gave the initial example it was to highlight to the op if someone who is clearly breaching his tenancy agreement isn't evicted, then it is doubtful someone who is doing something legal whilst actually living in his social property has anything to worry about.

As for condescending. I believe you referred out of the blue to one of most posts as "rubbish". If assuming you know enough about a situation someone else has made a short post about to call it "rubbish" isn't condescending then I am at a loss as to what is.

Oh and for the record when you copy and paste stats on one of your many posts with copied "official statistics" (yawn) it's probably best to delete the mention of "google" on what you have pasted if you later want to claim you don't use google. Just saying.

nannytone_2

so you rent social housing and then sublet your living room as a landlord?

obviously a loophole somewhere that needs to be closed

mcjordi

helentay wrote: »

This has a similar feeling to the Met police officer that owned a flat in central London that he let out on a week to week basis as a holiday let. Yet he and his family lived in social housing on the outskirts of the city.

He wasn't claiming any benefits but the housing association took his home off him as it was considered illegal. On top of that he lost his job.

This was a case on 'Saints & Scroungers'.

he didnt own the flat in central london.. he sub letted the housing association flat out

somethingcorporate

underling wrote: »

My rent is £82pw and my lodger pays me 75pw as this is the shared accommodation rate for the area. When we move to the two bed place I’ll charge him a bit more (he can afford from his generous disability benefits. I could easily rent a room out in this area for £120+ so he’s getting a good deal really.

Sounds like you have no qualms ripping off the tax payer and seem to think you are doing joe public a favour.

Oh yes, you've never had a job more than 1 day a week. What a shining example you are.