howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
sounds like a bit of a slippery slope here, someone taking the can for another adult living on the premises.
If that is the agreement that is signed then the named Tennant knows what they are taking on when they take the property , and its about time t was enforced
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
I also think the council could be on a slippery slope here unless the mother has been warned before about something else. I would have thought she would have to have had a written warning prior to eviction.
I remember on a TV programme there was a lot of trouble with a lady's grandson who was living with her, she was given a warning to remove him or she would loose her home.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The eviction will be handled by the courts through the ususal process , what is new is that the council is going to enforce its rules , the court will have the final say , if the tennant chooses to get the Son to leave then that could be presented in evidence at court .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i have never actually seen an agreement that a council tenant signs, however there seems to be something wrong here.
if an owner occupier has a member of the family or a lodger misbehave there are no sanctions, rogue landlords that pack as many unhousetrained people as they can into a property then bleed the taxpayer for the rent have no comebacks, it seems that anyone that is a council tenant is singled out.
Im not sure they are singled out , its just that thier Tenancy has a clause between the landlord and the Tennent that can be enforced in this way . Private tenencies (SP) may or may not have these clauses .
Private landlords who abuse the system or other individuals should be tackeled under diferent legislation , ie HMO , environmental health and ASBOs , I am so aware that these are not at times easy to enforce , but that dosnt mean that the sanctions that can be enforced shouldnt be
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
And the others to whom you refer, Howard, are not being housed courtesy of a large taxpayer subsidy. (taxpayer=you and me, for your guidance).
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
not convinced by your argument peter.
1) i thought that council rents had less subsidy now than they have ever had.
2) interest payments on mortages paid out by the benefits agency are quite massive.
3) rogue landlords bleed taxpayers far more than other so called scroungers do.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard, ypur post 65 brings back a discussion between Keith nd me about a month back on the Forum concerning housing benefits.
At the time Keith asked some Forum members to illuminate, but it seems no-one did.
The point I made was, housing benefits are paid directly to the claimant, not the landlord, unless the claimant expressly asks the Council to pay the landlord directly.
Thus, roghe landlords might be housing many more people then the Councils know of, charging each tenant less rent in return.
This would mean that the tenants pays less to the landlord then they receive from the Council, and keep the difference.
That way, tenants housed by roghe landlords might be pocketing a considerable amount of their housing benefit rather than paying it all to the landlord.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
part of your last posting i'm not certain is correct(maybe one of our District councillors can advise)
you stated housing benefit was not paid to the landlord, I think they are,
can one of our cllrs help please
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
As both a Landlord and a Councillor, the rent can be paid to either, unless legislation has changed recently.
We had some tenants a few years ago that were on benefits (we weren't aware of that at the time) and the Council paid us direct.
It turned out that the tenant was a benefit cheat and the Council were chasing them. I helped all I could and hoped to read that she had been caught, but I never did.
Roger
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
The tenant we had, when we first moved to the pub before we sold the house, was on benefits and the Council paid us direct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
some of the 'looting scumbag' politicians were jailed but are already being released having served only a fraction of their time. I would love to see greater accountability for politicians. They demand accountability elsewhere in the public sector yet choose not to have it for themselves. Accountability by ballot box isn't robust enough as many then just swan off to well paid consultancies.
My point, however, was that there needs to be parity and baying for 14 year olds to be jailed or families to be removed from social housing smacks of the establishment stamping down firmly on the more vulnerable/inadequate sectors of society whilst ignoring the state of its own house.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The default is to pay HB to the claimant, the claimant can, with the involvement of the landlord have the HB paid directly. This means the landlord giving their banking details to the Council;ac No. etc.
Why this is is a mystery to me, except that keeping things up to date is the responsibility of the claimant and therefore unscrupulous landlords could keep on taking monies they are not entitled to with impunity, the blame/error being the sole responsibility of the (ex)claimant.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
As you can see, now, Keith, housing benefit can be paid directly to the tenant, so this confirms what I stated about rogue landlords, that if they offer accomodation that is below standards in return for less rent (ie living in the garden shed while declaring to the Council that the residence is in a room within the house), then the tenants can pocket the difference.
Another trick could be to rent out the same room to three different claimants, and each claimant declares to the Council a different room number, ie room 1, room 2, room 3.
If they each pay 50% less rent in return for sharing the same room, then the landlord gains, and each tenant gains.
Imagine how that works out in London, where rent is very high, and housing benefits are accordingly very high. A roghe tenant could be pocketing £50-100 a week!
If they share the room with two friends or colleagues, for them it is a sacrifice worth making.
May-be Boris of London could illuminate us more!
The underworld which in your innocence you don't see, Keith, can cost the tax-payer a very lot of money! My point to Howard is, it is not only the rogue landlord, but also the conpliant rogue tenant who cashes in!
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Alexander,
How can you extrapolate to profuse criminality from a brain-storming exercise on what could be done, 'If'?
A common enough theme in Hollywood has pennies abstracted from a large number of bank accounts, thus netting the criminal large sums. Is the penny to be done away with?
This might help put your mind at rest...
http://www.dover.gov.uk/benefits/fraud/data_matching.aspxIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Tom, the talk was about rogue landlords, and the following phrase in Howard's post 65 was the object of my comments:
"rogue landlords that pack as many unhousetrained people as they can into a property then bleed the taxpayer for the rent have no comebacks"
If you follow my point through, you'll find there might be an issue concerning housing benefits paid out without proper control on the part of the Coucil as to whether the declarations presented by tenants are exact.
For example, it two people each declare to live in the same room (bed-sit), they will NOT each recveive the full rent, else the landlord would get from the State the same rent two times.
If they each declare to live in a separate room (ie room A, room B), they will each receive the full rent.
Does the Coucil (London or other large cities) actually go and see whether the two claimants are indeed occupying two different rooms?
If they did, we might save a lot of tax-payers money!