Councils encouraging law breaking

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "01/02/2014 - 21:23":

Richard, unfortunately this clause is essentially just a warning to the tenant to inform him on what grounds court proceedings for possession might be started.

That's the same basically with a s.21 notice, which is not a notice to quit and in fact does not legally say anything more that "Dear Mr. Tenant, please note that after expiry of this notice I might start court proceedings at some point in order to get possession order".

These are the rules of the game as of today, and councils just use them because, as discussed, for various reasons they want to delay having to re-house someone for as long as they can.

Landlords ought to be clear that serving notice to a tenant has no effect on the tenancy and does not oblige the tenant to do anything so that, while hoping for the best, they should prepare for the worst (and/or to negotiate with tenant if possession is imperatively needed on a deadline).

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "01/02/2014 - 22:00":

Well Romain fortunately I have emerged smelling of roses. No point in airing my grievances any more therefore. Thanks for you advice which will serve me well in any future similar instance.

I do propose though to find out just where Councils should draw the line between giving advice to tenants about their rights and actively encouraging them to stay put. Do you recall my mentioning a veiled threat made to my tenant by the Housing Advice Team, namely "if you don't defy your landlord it might be difficult for us to add your name to the housing list". What a thing to say.

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "01/02/2014 - 23:03":

I agree with you entirely Richard, I was playing devil's advocate earlier.

My tenant was told to 'stay put' and was also told that they would have no duty of care to re-house him if he left on the date of the expiry of the notice.
I had to apply to the court for a bailiff's order.

It seemed to matter not that he was a vulnerable adult, and was receiving top level DLA, which we had fought to get for him.
( the extra money was the source of the problem. ie drinking, with help from our local landlord, the other type!! - so it was our fault for getting it for him !! - lesson definitely learnt there !! )
The social services said he was adequately housed with me, and so there was nothing they would do for him unless he was homeless, so I had to evict him so social services would take any care of him !!
(We, as landlord and partner, were cooking for him and doing his washing and other things since he wasn't capable himself)
- They eventually stuck him in a flat in some empty military barracks in a small village to fed for himself !!

- That's the other part of my eviction story.

Councils wear too many hats when it comes to housing and their relationship with the PRS

1 as council house providers they are our biggest competitors

2 as payers of HB our pay master

3 as providers of EHO's our enforcers

It is not surprising that with the on set of UC they have sharpened their practices. Most socialist authorities despise what the PRS stands for. The political divide in some cities is a cavern and anti PRS prejudices seep down to officer level who are keen to do their masters bidding.

In Hull for example

1- despite pleading there is a shortage of council houses they can't even fill their empty houses. The council are actively ''pinching'' good tenants from the PRS without proper notice and without taking references

2 the EHO team are used by their political masters as a propaganda tool to try and paint the PRS as a bunch of rogues who should be prohibited from letting out houses

I am fed up of hearing the socialist myth that we need to build more social houses. There is a glut of housing up North that is lying empty. It is wholly wrong of councils to plead that their are 1000's on their waiting lists. These people are living in perfectly good housing, they are not living rough on the streets. Like most people they want more for less especially if its a life time tenancy at a low rent of course wholly subsidised by the tax payer!

The answer is simple . Force LA to give up their council stock to an independent non political social landlord i.e. a RSL. Unfortunately because councils not only transfer their housing stock but also their staff to the new RSLs old attitudes and prejudices against the PRS do take a few years to get diluted , but at least its a start.

De politicalise housing, privatise EHO depts and HB depts. The 1st two been done in Labour controlled North East Lincolnshire and the PRS their have little if any problems with their council.

Reply to the comment left by "Jim " at "02/02/2014 - 08:23":

Amen to all that Jim. If it were just left wing councils being anti PRS and those still owning their own housing stock being flies in the ointment we'd at least know where we stand.

Don't wish to bore readers with my story again but it involves a Conservative controlled council albeit with Lib Dem leanings at officer level which are certainly not pro PRS. Furthermore council sold its housing stock some years ago. Fact remains that would be and existing tenants still have to speak with the council's Housing Advice Team about their tenancies and their "officers" - I use the word loosely! - are actively advising and encouraging tenants to stay put having had Sec 21 notices served upon them.

Maybe Housing Associations etc in some places have an "arrangement" with Housing Officers where the latter are asked/encouraged to keep folk off their waiting lists hence what has happened in my case?

I have put in a formal complaint about this, I don`t suppose for one minute it will get me anywhere, but at least I will get the satisfaction of causing them problems, and I will take it to a level where the complaint becomes a statistic, they will not like that.

Advising them to stay put ! Get them to put this in writing , they are more likely to admit to advising them that they do not have to leave until the bailiff calls There is a subtle difference, the first is a an illegal inducement to breach a court order the latter a factual and legal acknowledgement that only a bailiff can force you out.

The fact remains you will have an order for costs against the tenant and you need to write to the court to ensure that if un paid , as they usually are , they are registered as a CCJ. At least next time they want a telly on chuckie they will be declined.

the real thrust of this discussion should be about errant inefficient councils who are scared still of the roll out of payment direct because they don't want to offend their voting base by evicting them. Roll on UC, why should councils and RSL be treated any differently than the PRS?

We provide long term tenancies to benefit tenants and despite the rigours of payment direct to tenants we still manage to get our rent in. The so called social providers need to do the same.

I am sure many councils misuse their powers to demonise the PRS , to protect jobs and lobby to build more council homes that quite simply are not needed North of the M25.

There is a glut of empty homes up North , we do not want any more

Reply to the comment left by "Jim " at "02/02/2014 - 15:37":

Quote: "There is a glut of empty homes up North , we do not want any more"

..Hey Jim,
if you get companies to build homes up north they will need to employ people, this will solve the job shortage, and then there will be people who need to move up there to do the jobs so this will fill the homes that are empty.... 😉

...I can't quite put my finger on the flaw in my argument !!

Reply to the comment left by "Alan Loughlin" at "29/01/2014 - 20:23":

Verbal abuse is no way to proceed and nothing to be proud of.

Reply to the comment left by "Glyn Jones" at "31/01/2014 - 10:56":

If the tenancy has not been terminated, then the tenant is still responsible for the council tax.

At least that is the situation with the wording of my agreement.

Tell the council that the tenant is still responsible under the terms of the agreement and do not pay.