Question regarding Local Authority Homeless policy

Question regarding Local Authority Homeless policy

16:06 PM, 15th August 2012, About 9 years ago 81

Text Size

I have a property related question regarding Local Authority Homeless policy.

My local authority advises tenants to ignore section 21 notices and to stay in the property until a court order / bailiffs arrive. If the tenant does not do this my council deems the tenants to have made themselves voluntarily homeless and they will get no help with re-housing.

I think this must be illegal as well as morally wrong as the tenant is only legally entitled to stay until the date on the section 21. Surely their actions are inducing my tenants to break a valid legal contract, they are interfering in a contract between me and my tenant, and their advice is causing me loss.

I know that Government does not like them doing this and advises them that Homelessness occurs once a section 21 is due to expire as long as it is valid and the landlord has a clear intention of enforcing it. It is such a problem that it has now been given it’s own term – gatekeeping. The council gets no benefit from this policy other than a short term gain, they still end up helping the tenants but just delay it by a couple of weeks. In the long term they shoot themselves in the foot because they now have a tenant on their books for life who will never be able to use the private rental sector because of his poor references due to the legal action.

I have complained about this before with my council but never had the time to take it any further. This time I have made a formal complaint and have a meeting on Monday with them.

What do you think? Do you know of any acts, quotes, references that you know may help my case?

Kind regards

Steve G



Comments

by

21:29 PM, 16th August 2012, About 9 years ago

WOW !!!! this issue really is a raw nerve.
i've been a landlord now for 11 years and only now have I realised section 21 only serves as an 'intent to evict if possible'.
what the hell is a tenancy agreement for ?

if a landlord breaks any part of the agreement he/she is in the wrong.
if a tenant breaks the agreement, we are still in the wrong !!!!!

I don't know why but I sense a certain amount of bias.

just where did I put that brick ??? my head needs beating.

by Mark Alexander

21:57 PM, 16th August 2012, About 9 years ago

LOL - see cartoon at the top of this post >>>
http://www.property118.com/index.php/landlords-insurance-renewal/31045/

by

0:54 AM, 17th August 2012, About 9 years ago

Now you are appreciating that a LL is exposed financially to losses and possible bankruptcy should a tenant not leave or pay rent.
The law is 100% on the side of the tenant.
A tenant will just leave eventually with no real possibility of recovery of anything.
It could take months to evict a tenant, during which time the property is repossessed if you cannot afford to make mortgage payments.
Does this LL game look so good now!!!???
Took me 9 months and £12000 of losses before I managed to evict the non-rent paying fraudster tenant.
1 tenant could destroy your whole livelihood and leave you homeless and in debt to lenders for years, with a destroyed credit rating.
They don't tell you that at all those wealth creation seminars do they!?
RGI whilst not a guaranteed solution is the best thing to have in addition to full DD on a tenant.
Therefore to absolutely guarantee that you would never lose a property to a non-rent paying tenant you need at least12 times the monthly rent to cover every tenancy.
So imagine on a 6 month tenancy you need £12000 and you use it all up whilst evicting the tenant.
You need to find another £12000 for the next tenant you take on.
This is the risk every time you take a tenant on.
Obviously these are extreme circumstances; but it happened to me 3 times and cost me 2 properties and £!50000 of losses and loss of future capital gain and ongoing financial detriment for another 12 years.
With also the possibility of a charge being enforced, leaving me homeless and possibly losing ALL my properties.
These tenant who caused be so much detriment walked away scot free as the law protects them from the LL even if they commit crime and civil offences.
Tenants can just walk away and not suffer ANY hardship caused by their wrongdoing.
Every LL is exposed to total financial loss if they cannot cover by whatever means a tenant not paying rent whilst evicting them.

by Industry Observer

9:25 AM, 17th August 2012, About 9 years ago

Paul
I think you will find the danger period in terms of accepting rent post Court Order is AFTER the maturity date of the Order itself.
The whole issue though is covered by your advocate asking for Mesne Profits to be attached to the Order

by

16:57 PM, 17th August 2012, About 9 years ago

Yes I am waiting for the housing benefit dept to contact me to get a definitive answer as to what would occur

by Adam Zeeblebum

19:40 PM, 17th August 2012, About 9 years ago

Hi all
Possibly entering the lions' den here, but I've got Daniel on speed dial in case I need him. :o)
I work for a local authority homelessness service (I'm probably going to type that a lot, so I'll go for LAHS as an abbreviation). I'm not posting to defend LAHSs in a blinkered way. Some decisions that some LAHSs make, and some advice that some LAHSs give, would be extremely difficult (and in some cases impossible) to defend with any legitimacy or authority.
What I'd like to do is address some of the misconceptions that have been expressed in some posts about the reasons why LAHSs make some of the decisions that people have been commenting on. I'm not saying that the events themselves have been misunderstood or that the accounts of them are incorrect - they're the experiences that those people had - but that the LAHSs motivations and the constraints under which they operate have been misunderstood.
LAHSs and private landlords (PLs) are in an excellent position to work jointly and cooperatively, and in a mutually beneficial way, to resolve difficulties that both PLs and people who are homeless (or threatened with homelessness) are facing. Some LAHSs, in partnership with PLs, have made huge strides in this direction, but there's lots more work than can be done on this.
So I'm going to read through the comments again and post where I feel I can add clarity and contribute helpfully. And if anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them as well and as honestly as I'm able to.
[And I may be being overly cautious here, but because this is a sensitive and emotive subject (legally as well as for other reasons), and just in case it becomes apparent which local authority I work for, all the comments I make are my own opinion, and are not intended to reflect the views of my employer nor of any other LAHS. Neither should any of my comments be taken necessarily as an accurate statement of housing and homelessness legislation.]

by Joe Bloggs

23:01 PM, 17th August 2012, About 9 years ago

YOUR STATE:
'I think I would actually want upfront payment from a tenant who wanted me to evict them I reckon £500 plus all the costs should do it.'
THAT SEEMS MORE THAN CONJECTURE AND POSTED UNDER YOUR ACTUAL NAME. SEEMS YOU WILL POST ANYTHING, WHETHER TO THE DETRIMENT OF LANDLORDS GENERALLY AND YOURSELF SPECIFICALLY. POOR JUDGEMENT TO SAY THE LEAST.

by

3:06 AM, 18th August 2012, About 9 years ago

So explain why a white Anglo-Saxon single male who has been on the council waiting list for 10 years is bumped down the list when some Romanian gypsy and her brood of generally about 5 children jumps the queue and is placed in nice council accomodation without any need to work.
I'll tell you why, because the stupid Labour govt instigated a rule that housing need was to be considered over everything else.
Which is why the single WHITE male who has been on the council list will NEVER be at the top of the waiting list as there will always be some immigrant from the EU or bogus asylum seeker who is given precedence in housing as they will be considered to be in greater housing need.
I have no issue with provision of housing to these types, but first they must join the list, just like everyone else has.
In about 15 years they will be at the top of the list.
We need fairness in provision of social and necessarily cheaper accommodation.
We use lists for this.
If you are a Somalian refugee who for some reason has had to cross 2 continents to get here, they are given big houses for them and their brood at vast expense to the taxpayer.
We all know the one who got moved to a better property in North London as he didn't think where he was staying was good enough for him;......only in the UK!
Last time I looked Kenya was a stable place so why does a Somali have to come to Britain to escape persecution!!?
Homeless people in London tend to come from up North.
They have places up there they have voluntaqrily left to come to the bright lights.
I say return to where you came from, we don't nedd you here.

by

3:17 AM, 18th August 2012, About 9 years ago

Not to my detriment at all, I tell it as it is.
Talking about things is completely different from actually doing it.
And the discussion was about homelessnes, how do people jump the queue.
Thinking out loud as to what one might do is completely different from actually doing it.
Nothing I post causes me ANY detriment whatsoever.
My judgement is fine thankyou.
Not once has anything I have said been to my detriment and never will, possibly because I play by the rules!
I support LL and so should we all, we have a difficult job to do.I'll give you my address aswell if you want, I don't care.
What I do is within legal parameters.
I do my job of providing good quality accommodation to tenants for a price.
The problems I have is with tenants who don't wish to pay the price even though they have agreed to it.
I never twist anybody's arm to take a tenancy with me.
Just know if you don't comply with the AST I WILL boot you out courtesy of the RGI company.
Nothing wrong with that,plain and simple, even the thickest tenant would understand that!!
We need to discuss all ways to prevent being stitched up by wrongun tenants.
Why would I hide my real name,

by Joe Bloggs

12:59 PM, 18th August 2012, About 9 years ago

NO AMOUNT OF STRAYING OFF TOPIC CAN HIDE WHAT YOU SAID.
YOU HAVE MADE A CLEAR STATEMENT OF YOUR INTENT, I.E.:
''I think I would actually want upfront payment from a tenant who wanted me to evict them I reckon £500 plus all the costs should do it."
ARE YOU GOING TO POST YOUR ADDRESS?
THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES REGARDING YOUR JUDGEMENT.


Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER