Landlord accused me of fraud in email and obtained private information from council?

lighting_up_the_chalice

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Tenants have legal recourse to get repairs done, gas certificates issued, etc. Refusing to pay rent could mean the landlord cannot afford to complete repairs.

Very true (though a landlord with such immediate dependence on income is to be avoided). But that doesn't answer the point being raised, which is why should that option be denied to one sector of the community and not another?

Bollotom

And the landlord who does his repairs and maintenance and looks after his tenants? Why should that option be denied to one sector of the community and not another?...

lighting_up_the_chalice

Bollotom wrote: »

And the landlord who does his repairs and maintenance and looks after his tenants? Why should that option be denied to one sector of the community and not another?...

Landlords are not denied options, they are protected by law and have suitable recourse should a tenant default, regardless of that tenants status with regards to the benefit system. What we are discussing is restricting the options (and responsibilities) of those claiming HB.

SnooksNJ

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

He's running a business and has to accept some of the risks associated with that. Even those who don't rely on HB could stop paying rent. He, of course, can mitigate this by withdrawing the service he provides through eviction.



Why? It's exactly the same for those who don't rely on HB. Why should those who do be absolved of that responsibility?

Here's a thought, how about everyone should pay their rent.

lighting_up_the_chalice

SnooksNJ wrote: »

Here's a thought, how about everyone should pay their rent.

Indeed they should. And everyone should obey the speed limits. But the choice to do so should be the individuals, in the full knowledge of the possible consequences of doing so. It would be an act of discrimination if, say, only those on benefits had speed restrictors fitted to their cars.

Bollotom

And non-drivers would be discriminated against as they couldn't enjoy the benefits? I think your devils advocate stint has run it's course and perhaps you should give it up as a bad loss, unless I'm being discriminatory against devils advocates, lol

lighting_up_the_chalice

Bollotom wrote: »

And non-drivers would be discriminated against as they couldn't enjoy the benefits?

In much the same way as non-renters are denied the opportunity to with-hold the rent they don't pay? Have you thought this through?

Bollotom wrote: »

I think your devils advocate stint has run it's course and perhaps you should give it up as a bad loss, unless I'm being discriminatory against devils advocates, lol

As my position reflects the current regulations, it's hardly a bad loss.

help4help2013

if you claiming housing benefit then it should be paid to the landlord i think the landord did the right thing after all your renting a property from them and your getting your rent paid for by hosing benefit so it should go to the landlord its not to spend on thing that you want to spend it on its for rent only no wonder there are many landlords that will not take on housing benefit tenants it because of situations like this that make it harder for those who honestly pay the rent to there landlords if your claiming HB then you must also be claiming other benefits too.

i agree with what the landlord did they was totally within there rights to do so but i dont think HB would be happy when they find out what you have done with the money they was paying you for your rent

patman99

Anyone noticed that the OP has not been back to defend themselves today?.

I, for one, would like to see the law changed so that HB goes direct to the LL & the LA's legal duty to re-house a tenant upon eviction from a rented property removed.
As a mortgage-payer, if I were to have my home repossessed, then the LA has no legal duty to find me a property. However, if I were evicted for non payment of rent, then they will re-home me. I find this ridiculous.

lighting_up_the_chalice

patman99 wrote: »

I, for one, would like to see the law changed so that .......the LA's legal duty to re-house a tenant upon eviction from a rented property removed. (Post clipped)

It is. If a tenant is found to have become homeless as a result of their own actions or in-actions (including non payment of rent), then they will be deemed to have made themselves "intentionally homeless" and will be owed NO duty to re-house under current homeless legislation.

It's also worth noting that recent changes mean that any homeless duty owed can be discharged via a private rent rather than just social housing.