To think that councils that don't help homeless people until they are formally evicted are basically state sanctioning theft?

[WooWooOwl]

It seems so wrong to me that councils can do this, both to people that need housing and to landlords who may not be getting paid what they are owed.

Why do they need to wait until the last possible moment before giving people deposit loans or emergency housing? What difference does it make to them when they are going to have to help in the end anyway?

It can make a huge difference to landlords who could be losing hundreds of pounds in rent if someone who's being evicted chooses not to pay, and it wastes money and court time when they have to go to such lengths to get back their own property when they have done everything legally already. And those months of stress are not something the tenant needs either.

AIBU to think councils should be obliged to sort out emergency housing or deposit money as soon as a tenancy has ended? And if they won't, AIBU to think that the police should assist landlords whose properties are being wrongfully occupied and who are having money stolen from them when they have to put up with a non paying tenant in the same way they would assist anyone else who was a victim of theft?

Maybe a lot of people would say they are homeless without being homeless in order to get a council place?

I lived in a place where I was given notice to leave and the council told me I had to wait for the bailiffs to turn up before they helped me. Luckily for me the new buyer of the house I was living in let me stay on, so I didn't end up being homeless in the end. So if this policy didn't exist, the council could have housed me (or more likely put me on the list to wait 10 years) when I wouldn't have actually ended up homeless. I hope this makes sense.

I'm not agreeing with it at all, I think it's ridiculous but I'm sure there is a reason behind it.

A council I used to live in wouldn't count a pregnant person as 2 people until the child was born, whereas a neighbouring one would house pregnant people in 2 beds. I think that is also a really harsh policy, but I can sort of see why it exists.

I think this is ridiculous too - I work in letting and if a landlord serves notice on a non paying tenant, the council tell them to stay in till bailiff. This can take 6 months and the landlord may not be getting any rent this whole time, and for however long before the landlord served notice that they weren't paying rent. I couldn't believe it the first time I came across it.

Maybe people would try to claim that they're homeless when they're not, but surely notice of the tenancy ending should be enough. Landlords need more protection in this area IMO.

I don't think landlords need more protection to be honest, and I am one. It's a calculated risk you take when you decide to become a landlord. It does suck when it goes wrong but nobody HAS to be a landlord. I feel far sorrier for the tenants who have the vulnerability of being moved on. But ultimately there would be no point in the law giving tenants the extra protection of the right to remain until bailiffs warrant, if everybody was advised to leave as soon as the initial notice has expired.
I do agree it's not ideal but I'm not sure what the answer is.

YANBU, but you'll get many people telling you that they deserve all they get.

I've had it said to my face. I ended up homeless because I couldn't bring myself to effectively break the law.

But the law explicitly says it's your right to stay in the property unless the landlord obtains a bailiffs warrant against you. How is that breaking any laws? Obviously rent etc should still be paid but to remain in the property is perfectly legal, albeit inconvenient for the landlord.

Yanbu, although I'm coming at it from a remnants point of view.

It forces people to have a black mark against their finances and references so for people who could have worked their way out of difficulties now have to deal with the consequences for much, much longer.

Circle of poverty sanctioned by the state imo.

Remnants = tennants!

Notice to end the tenancy isn't enough because you could ask your landlord nicely to serve you notice and get housed despite the fact that you aren't really in need, because you could stay where you are. Waiting until the person is evicted ensures that they really are in need.
It's a fucking shit system for landlords but the whole housing system is fucking shit and those at the bottom of the pile aren't to blame.

yanbu
but it is shocking as well that mortgage companies are able to stipulate 'no housing benefit' for rental properties.

It probably isn't breaking any laws even if the tenant isn't paying rent, but that doesn't mean it's not immoral for someone to take a service that they aren't paying for, at the same time as costing the landlord a fortune for not sticking to their side of the agreement.

I realise it's a risk that landlords choose to take, the same as someone who chooses to open a shop runs the risk of dealing with shoplifters, but that doesn't make it ok.

If councils didn't drag out the process of giving help to people that they are going to have to give help to eventually anyway, then it would benefit the tenant too, not just the landlord.

UI (you really do need a namechange!) good for you for having morals.

The council won't take you if you are not paying your rent, it's classed as making yourself intentionally homeless

Ehric, a tenant could do that, but I don't really see the difference tbh. Whatever the council does to check that a tenant really is homeless could still be done, just earlier. Landlords are unlikely to decide at the last minute after issuing a section 21 that they are prepared to let a non paying tenant stay after all.

So if you worked at the council, and you had 12 families come in and say they were being evicted, but you only have 3 temporary accommodation units available, and 10 of the families had only been served the initial notice, what would you do? You would presume that all 10 of those families are actually going to get evicted? Even though experience shows you that not all of the them will...sometimes landlords change their minds, sometimes the notice wasn't genuine but an attempt to access social housing quickly, you would just treat all those families as homeless months before they legally become homeless? Even though you don't physically have anywhere for them to go?

In an ideal world with endless resources I actually agree that it would be lovely to treat all those families as homeless and give them somewhere to go immediately, but back in the real world I just can't see how that would work.

The council will still provide if you have children, even if you're not paying rent.

Mousmous, it's not just mortgage companies, it's insurance companies as well. But that's because tenants claiming HB are statistically more likely to default, so I can understand why they do it.

I don't have a mortgage on my tiny rental property, and I would have considered paying the extra on insurance to take HB claimants. But because I need insurance to cover me in case tenants don't pay and I have to go through court to evict and possibly months of no income, I'm not prepared to pay the extra.

If councils didn't go around telling people that they have to wait to be evicted, and force LLs into paying insurance for that, then more people would be willing to accept HB, and there wouldn't be such a shortage of properties for HB claimants in the first place. They are perpetuating the vicious circle.

So what would you do, in the circumstances above? Really, who would you prioritise and how? Because those are the decisions that council workers have to make every day, and if you can think of a better way of doing it I for one would be glad to hear it.

HappyMonkey, if I had any power at the council I'd pay rent directly to landlords if they were claiming HB, as people presenting as homeless Are likely to be, then the problem would be less likely to occur in the first place.

Councils have the power to give claimants money for their deposits, and if enough landlords weren't put off letting to HB claimants because of the councils rules, then there would be more options for them to house people in private rentals.

Why is the Housing Benefit not going straight to the LL's?

It should be

I think the government changed it recently didn't they so that councils are not allowed to pay HB direct to the landlord, they have to pay it to the claimant ( I might be wrong on that but I'm sure someone will let me know :) )
So if that is the case and you as the council worker don't have the option of paying HB direct to landlords, what would you do?
And you still haven't really answered the question, if you had 10 families who have been served a section 21 notice, 2 families who have a bailiffs warrant and 3 empty temporary accommodation places...what would you do with the other 9 families? Would you really not advise them that they are legally allowed to remain in their property? Even though the law clearly says they are? Would you put them in a tent?? I genuinely don't understand what you would advise them to do if not to stay in the property.

Housing benefit does not go directly to the landlord as we pay benefits in cash, not kind - it is up to the claimant to budget properly and sepnd thier money - would you like your employer paying directly to your landlord/mortgage company?

Obviously the idea is that they use the extra time in the property to find somewhere else to live, and the council should help them with that but the families do need to use the extra time that they have, otherwise it really is just delaying the inevitable.

But I have known families who have stayed another year after getting the initial notice cos the landlord wasn't in that much of a hurry to get them out.

The law says that they are legally allowed to remain in their property, even if they are effectively stealing, and my objection to that is the whole poit of the thread!

It shouldn't be legal.

I really don't know enough about how councils do these things, especially as it's different for each council, but if I had 9 families that were going to be on the streets if I didn't find them somewhere then I'd send them to B&Bs. If there weren't enough in my area then I'd try the surrounding areas. If that couldn't happen I'd send them to the nearest youth hostel or hotel. If the law was changed, and these people had children so I was obliged to house them, then they have to go somewhere.

I'd rather that money was spent by the council than by victims of theft, especially as those victims pay their taxes, which should include some protection.

Ok. Well I won't go into the outrageous cost to the taxpayer of using b&bs, hostels etc, suffice to say that they are extortionate.

And I won't bang on about the negative effects on people, particularly children, in terms of their physical and mental health when living in a b&bs which usually means overcrowded and lack of cooking facilities.

And I definitely won't talk about the inevitable impact on employment and education when people are moved outside the area and often have no transport.

Because as long as the landlords get their property back after 2 months, rather than 6 months, then that's problem solved!