Here is a heartfelt blog clinic question from Bobby
Hi, I am a landlord, I served my tenant a section 21 over 2 months ago as he was troublesome (ie. always breaking things, but paid rent on time.) The reason for notice was the rent was increasing by 100 GBP.
When we originally entered a contract he did not tell me he was claiming housing benefit. He says his hours at work are reduced and his situation is changed. He is refusing to leave as has contacted the council and they have told him to wait till I send him a court eviction, he wants this as a bargaining tool to get a council house. Can you advise me what i should do:
1) Go the Court route and evict him (at my expense) this is wat he wants so can get a council house.
2) Let him stay at the current rent with no guarantee he will pay) also as he earns so less i cannot even get homelet insurance if he defaults on payements.
I feel he is stiching me up to get a council house. Please can you advise.
Bobby, I am afraid you are not the only landlord this has happened to by a long way. Over the years I have done countless evictions which were only necessary becuase the tenant had been told to stay in situ or he would not get re-housed.
You need to decide whether you want this tenant in your propety or not. If not, then I should just evict him. If you are happy to let him stay at the old rent, let him stay, but on a periodic tenancy so you can go to court and evict him reasonably quickly under the accelerated procedure if you change your mind.
Don’t give him a new tenancy agreement as this will cancel the section 21 notice you have served.
Note that I have some do it yourself repossession kits which can be used by landlords to evict tenants which is considerably less than using solicitors (and can be re-used as well).
Bobby – My view is you should:
1. Get rid, via the courts. Retain control. It’s expensive, it takes time, but you must maintain control. Your tenant is doing you over – take steps to remove them from your life, however long it takes. My most recent eviction took ten months (from expiry of s21 to bailiff visit) but it’s often quicker.
2. In future protect yourself better. You can take out insurance to guarantee the rent and cover eviction proceedings. You can take a guarantor (ideally a home owner). You can take a (larger) deposit. You can refuse to accept benefit claimants. Ask yourself “What can I do, so this never happens again?”.
The big lesson of being a landlord is that the place to solve tenant problems is BEFORE they move in, by choosing the right ones. Choose sensible people, those who can reliably pay the rent, who can *guarantee* they can pay the rent, people who have some money, people with good credit, people who can provide references, people who are likely to stay for the long term, people who have something to lose. If you do all that, life will be a lot easier in future. Good luck.
Right, I feel my fingers stretching here, if you get the analogy.
I work in a homelessness unit (although not as a homelessness worker) and I train homelessness staff.
Despite the fact that most social housing has been sold off through the right to buy, the weird idea still persists that if I go “Dahn the cahncil” I’ll get a council house. Think again!
Since 1997 the law has allowed councils to discharge their homelessness duty by finding applicants accommodation in the private rented sector, so, in London at least, there is a 99% chance that they will be offered an AST with a private landlord as discharge of duty.
The Localism bill that is coming in is going to strengthen that even further, in that offers of tenancies in the PRS are going to be mandatory, in other words, turn it down and its duty discharged.
Thats not there at the moment though.
The council aren’t under a statutory duty to deal with your guy Bobby (in this instance, as I understand it) until he is threatened with homelessness within the next 28 days. A court hearing in 28 days doesn’t count because it could go either way, we are talking definate possession.
However, councils often ignore paragraph 8.32 of the homelessness code of guidance (their bible, or at least should be) which states “it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation beyond the date given in the s.21 notice, unless the housing authority is taking steps to persuade the landlord to withdraw the notice or allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found”.
Homelessness units often forget this and gatekeeping comes into play.
If your guy is in a rural area he may well get a council house but if he is making an application in an inner city area he aint got a prayer.
If he gets past the homelessness defintion then the council will also look at “Intentionality”, whether or not the applicant has done, or failed to do, something which has resulted in the loss of his home. Said home having been suitable to occupy, available for him to occupy and reasonable to expect him to occupy at the time of evcition.
Again, homelessness units often trumpet intentionality decisions ignoring the code of guidance and case laws like Regina v. Wandsworth LBC ex parte Hawthorne 1994.Regina v. Northamptonshire DC ex parte Spruce 1988 and Din v. Wandsworth 1981. (You’ll have to google these, I am cooking dinner).
Your homelessness unit certainly shouldn’t be expecting your guy to stay until warrant. Make waves using the above case laws and code paragraphs. Your tenant has grave misperceptions and your homelessness unit may well be throwing a blamket over your parrot’s cage
Ben, not quite. Not every private rented offer is a valid discharge of duty, either by the failure to comply with the qualifying offer (minimum 2 year fixed term tenancy, etc) requirements or by dint of the private rented accommodation being unaffordable. In my borough the rent on a private 2-bed flat is £350.00 per week so unless you’re well paid or on the dole (and thus entitled to full HB) you can’t afford it.
(And I’m pretty sure that saying “quit your job so you’ll get full HB” isn’t an argument that it is affordable. I think we’ll see a lot more cases over this once the Localism Bill comes down the spike.)
I would go on about how people think that they’ll get something off the Caaahhhhhhncil as being endemnic of our entitlement culture but I can’t be bothered right now.
Bobby,
I am an Environmental Health Consultant. I have many years experience of enforcing minimum standards and dealing with complaints of illegal eviction and harassment in the private rented sector. In addition, I am a landlord.
Ollie C has hit the nail on the head. This is a common situation faced by many landlords. The unfortunate conclusion is that it puts landlords off letting properties to tenants in receipt of benefit, which results in fewer quality properties being made available to tenants on benefit.
Personally, I do not let my properties to benefit tenants simply because I don’t want the hassle.
Good luck.
I’m still agreeable to letting to benefit claimants, though I’m much more careful about it than I used to be. Clearly many more landlords are now refusing benefit claimants, which will compound the existing shortage of social housing.
The type of benefit claimants I like are those who have fallen on hard times – who have a deposit, who are organised with paperwork, who are working to better their lives, and who (most importantly for me) can provide a guarantor who owns a property in the UK.
Requiring a guarantor can mean longer voids, but has the rather wonderful side-effect of highlighting those who are trusted by friends/family, and repelling those who are financially unreliable. With such high demand for rental properties it is easier for landlords to pick better tenants, but of course a pretty horrific situation for many tenants.
It’s a shame the Government fails to support the PRS. A recent example is their decision to improve the speed of evictions, but only for social housing landlords, not the PRS.
But my view is that if a tenant is not showing basic respect for the landlord (paying all the rent on time, looking after the house, communicating) they need to be replaced. Perhaps not straight away, but it is a false economy to keep such tenants in place, and can have a severely unpleasant impact on the landlord’s quality of life should things (inevitably) deteriorate further.
Having a guarantor is a really good idea for benefit tenants. Have a listen to this podcast I did with HB expert Steve Perrons. http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/03/29/landlord-law-podcast-with-steve-perrins/
His main method of operations is to get family members to sign as guarantor, for the HB to be paid to the guarantor not the tenant, and for the guarantor to be responsible for paying the rent.
Apparently it works.
I find that having the guarantor is not what’s of most use. What’s most useful is eliminating the candidates who cannot provide one. This approach means I get far better tenants – they’re organised, sensible, pay on time, communicate.
After safety, the most important thing for landlords to get right is tenant selection.
@JS I agree, I was just providing a flavour of how it works. Getting rid of the qualifying offer will throw up interesting arguments.
@the EHP. Yes, as predicted landlords are moving away from benefit tenants but I dont think it necessarily true that benefit tenants are a hassle. I recall a survey from just a few months back by someone like ARLA or the RLA which showed landlords were often happy with them because of stability they didnt get with working tenants. I think it is a misplaced perception about benefit claimants, tyhat spilled over into perceptions of the backgrounds of rioters which also didnt stand up.
@Ollie. you’re right, the government fails to either support or regulate the PRS which makes it a minefield for landlords, tenants and people like me and EHP who have to negotiate in the middle.
@Tessa, I think Steve’s idea is a good one, an emotional and practical safety net
Ben you are dreaming if you think that Benefit claimant tenants are not more hassle than non benefit tenants, despite what some survey says. I am sure you actually see the hassles first hand.
I actually do rent to benefit tenants, but the entire system is on their side (free legal advice, advice from poorly informed CAB officers, councils who will not speak to the landlord about claims despite tenant waivers, councils who do not even know the legislation, councils and homelessness departments who quite blantantly encourage tenants to stay on at properties that they know they are not paying for, direct payment of rent to tenants even when tenants WANT it paid to landlords etc.). I could go go on.
I rent to HB tenants because that is almost the only tenant in one of the areas I rent in so I don’t even have a choice to ‘leave’ the HB sector entirely. I appreciate that private tenants can also pose issues, but the difficulties are nowhere near as bad. I wish the government would wake up to the problem.
A return to direct payment of HB to landlords would be a good start, as this was introduced as part of the Labour government Nanny State approach to treating everyone like they are a helpless imbecile that needs to be coddled, protected at every turn and encouraged to sit on the backside and collect their ‘entitlements’. Councils need to be forced to work WITH landlords to house tenants, not against them at every turn.