Homeless Dilemma. Help.

MissMoneypenny

Rollingstart wrote: »

He's made a major error there. He shouldn't have the deposit at all! It needs to be in a government licenced scheme, such as mydeposits, the DPA or Crapita.

The deposit is dealt with after you move out. He cannot give you a section 21 notice if he has not protected the deposit, it's invalid and it will show as invalid if this goes to court at which point he'll have to protect the deposit and then issue another section 21.

If you read what the OP said, the landlord returned her deposit in full before he issued a Section 21.

My understanding is that as he now doesn't have a deposit;as this was returned in full and accepted by the tenant; there is no deposit to protect. Therefore a S21 could be served. I'm happy to be corrected.

Tenants can drag their feet when they get a S21, but in the end the landlord will get their property back. The problem is the S21 (a no fault notice to quit) which was created by Labour of all parties! Together with the fact that from her past posts, it seeems the OP chose to move to an expensive part of the UK and rely on benefits to pay the rent.

Rollingstart

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The problem is the S21 (a no fault notice to quit) which was created by Labour of all parties! .

The notice is taken from Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. This was during the Thatcher years, Michael Howard was the one who pushed it through.

Admittedly Labour had the opportunity to change this when they drafted the Housing Act 2004 but historically ASTs and Section 21 notices are very much a product of the Conservatives not Labour.

Labour did however make the situation much worse when they introduced the modern buy to let mortgage in 1998.

MissMoneypenny

Rollingstart wrote: »

Most of Greater London is expensive.
Your reasoning is a bit off, what is London supposed to be, a city where mothers cannot live?

Why should those who work and earn too much for benefits but can't afford to move to London and have to commute to work, have to pay for the rents of those who live in London but don't work enough hours to keep themselves?

Interestingly, the Netherlands solved this problem a few years ago by introducing a flat rate for housing benefit for the whole country, instead of paying higher housing benefits rates if a claimant chose to live in an expensive area.. It also reduced the Netherlands Housing Benefit bill as either claimants moved to a cheaper area or they worked more hours to keep themsleves.

Rollingstart wrote: »

As for the argument that housing benefit drives up rents, in some areas yes but not London.

Supply and demand drives the market.

Rollingstart wrote: »

Moreover, if housing benefit had such a huge impact on rent levels, following the benefits cap, we'd have seen a fall in rents in London by now but in fact rents have been going up.

The cap only came in place if they didn't work at all.
If you watched those benefit programmes, parents were being told by council staff to get a job in a school, do an Avon round, sell on ebay ect for a few hours a week (16 hours a week for a single parent or 24 hours a week between them for a couple) to avoid having their benefits cut. According to the government figures, when that cap came in, many of those not working at all then found a job for a few hours a week to avoid their benefits being cut.

I assume this idea of getting parents back to work for a few hours a week, was to get them work ready for when Universal Credit is in their area and they then need to earn a set amount each week or face UC conditions.

MissMoneypenny

Rollingstart wrote: »

The notice is taken from Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. This was during the Thatcher years, Michael Howard was the one who pushed it through.

Admittedly Labour had the opportunity to change this when they drafted the Housing Act 2004 but historically ASTs and Section 21 notices are very much a product of the Conservatives not Labour.

Labour did however make the situation much worse when they introduced the modern buy to let mortgage in 1998.

Ah yes, you're right. I was confusing it with something I read about Labour MPs wanting the no fault Section 21 notice, because some of them had properties they let.

[Deleted User]

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

it seeems the OP chose to move to an expensive part of the UK and rely on benefits to pay the rent.

Yes I chose to move here when I was single and childless then never had any problems until my separation back in November. I will not apologise for wanting to live in the same area I have been living for 9 years + and I will not apologise for separating. I will not apologise from having help until I get back on my feet and I am sure I will get there. Unfortunately my eX held me back a lot and that is why he is an eX now.

[Deleted User]

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Why should those who work and earn too much for benefits but can't afford to move to London and have to commute to work, have to pay for the rents of those who live in London but don't work enough hours to keep themselves?

Interestingly, the Netherlands solved this problem a few years ago by introducing a flat rate for housing benefit for the whole country, instead of paying higher housing benefits rates if a claimant chose to live in an expensive area.. It also reduced the Netherlands Housing Benefit bill as either claimants moved to a cheaper area or they worked more hours to keep themsleves.



Supply and demand drives the market.




The cap only came in place if they didn't work at all.
If you watched those benefit programmes, parents were being told by council staff to get a job in a school, do an Avon round, sell on ebay ect for a few hours a week (16 hours a week for a single parent or 24 hours a week between them for a couple) to avoid having their benefits cut. According to the government figures, when that cap came in, many of those not working at all then found a job for a few hours a week to avoid their benefits being cut.

I assume this idea of getting parents back to work for a few hours a week, was to get them work ready for when Universal Credit is in their area and they then need to earn a set amount each week or face UC conditions.

I work 36 hours at the moment. I had a second job that I had to quit because I worked from home and with all the uncertainty of having a home, keeping that other job was not possible.

BigAunty

Deleted_User wrote: »

Yes I chose to move here when I was single and childless then never had any problems until my separation back in November. I will not apologise for wanting to live in the same area I have been living for 9 years + and I will not apologise for separating. I will not apologise from having help until I get back on my feet and I am sure I will get there. Unfortunately my eX held me back a lot and that is why he is an eX now.

I personally would not expect you to apologise for this. We live in a low wage/high expense society that has some of the highest accommodation, transport and child care costs in Europe.

You do work hard but I get the impression that a household in London really has to be bringing in 3 or more times the income you do to be attractive as a tenant, to have a more affordable time of things.

It also makes sense that at an emotional level, you feel entitled to remain where you are despite your change in economic status (caused by your change in relationship status).

But the reality is that you want things to stay the same despite your massive change in circumstance - it's understandable - but it's flying in the face of economic reality where you'd like the same standard of living with one wage coming into the house instead of two. You are stuck in the past.

You live in an area of very high demand for housing and very low supply. Frankly, for landlords and their agents, finding tenants is like shooting fish in a barrel. You are at the bottom of the pile. Fact.

Hopefully you will be lucky and secure that private rental without too much of a struggle on your budget, or be allocated a social housing property by the council.

But generally due to supply/demand issues, your true choices are to increase your income or decrease your expenses. If you can't earn more, then your options are to live in a cheaper area.

Where I live, it's possible to rent a 2 bedroom property for £500 a month (it's a low crime area 2 miles from the city centre with great shopping, cheap transport links, fantastic parks and museums). The LHA rate for a 2 bedroom property is £500 a month. It is an area with a higher than average provision of social housing. As there aren't so much pressure on housing stock (low immigration compared with London and the south east), it's easier to find property when on HB.

It's location would be unbearable to you as you have understandable preference to remain where you are for work/family/school ties. But lone parents here won't face a lifetime of struggle like the one you may endure where you are fighting against a tide of unbearable expense and limited options.

MissMoneypenny

Deleted_User wrote: »

Yes I chose to move here when I was single and childless then never had any problems until my separation back in November.

Your older posts show that you were claiming Housing Benefit even when you were with your husband.

You would have still had this same problem again of NO DSS when looking for somewhere to rent, even if you were still with your husband.

Deleted_User wrote: »

I will not apologise for wanting to live in the same area I have been living for 9 years +

Wanting to live in an area is different from being able to afford to live in that area. I have lots of cousins who had to move out of London when they reached their 20s because they couldn't afford to rent or buy there. This meant they had to move away from their family (parents, grandparents, great grandparents, cousins ect) and their home city that they wanted to continue to live in, for a better financial standard of life.

You could continue your SE and being a teaching assistant, in an area where your rent will be covered by benefits. Cheaper rent would make it easier for you to get off benefits and avoid any future benefit cuts caused by the new annual welfare bill cap.

bloolagoon

Deleted_User wrote: »

'If I'm right about your location there's an area I would consider alienating private LL a gamble on SH becoming available'
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Care to explain please?

My feeling is that the no DSS doesn't apply fully
I don't know what people are doing to rent whilst in receipt of HB but so far the LL I am meeting on Sat is the only one willing to at least 'consider' me. Other private LLs and agents are being clear I have no chance with them.

It appears that part of my first paragraph was accidently deleted. What I was saying is that if I'm correct in your area then I'd be wary of the gamble of SH. This is due to long waiting lists and emergency accommodation being mainly placed out of the area.

Are you fully dependant on HB ie receive the full allowance or do you only get part? If only part are the letting agents aware of this.

MissMoneypenny

bloolagoon wrote: »

Are you fully dependant on HB ie receive the full allowance or do you only get part? If only part are the letting agents aware of this.

Letting agents in London don't need to let to HB claimants as the properties will easily be filled.

The BBC news has just said that homelessness in London has increased by one third. Although they also stated this increase is mainly due to foreign nationals and the benefit changes.