To want to give up on private renting completely..

[Bornfizzle]

Hi all

I've just recently given birth and due to unforeseen circumstances I'm going to have to look for a home to rent privately but this is proving to be an impossible task as most landlords are listing in their ads "no dss" or "no housing benefit", some for homes that are 300 a month and under so I am no way looking too far out of my price range. The LHA in Belfast NI is roughly 363 for a two bed.

I know some landlord's mortgages don't permit tenants who are getting housing benefit but after surfing the subject for a while on MN and other sites there seem to be those landlords who tar anyone who is getting benefits as scroungers who will ruin their property and spend their rent money on drugs, alcohol ....you name it! I understand being spurned by previous tenants but surely blanketing us all is slightly unfair!

I am in no way any of those things and only want a place to call home for my DC.

Sorry for the rant ...after DP abandoning us at the last minute and a difficult pregnancy everything just seems hopeless. Waiting list for council housing for non priority is roughly 3 years, even waiting for a hostel would take a good while....I just feel like crying and screaming all a at once!

Or parking tickets maybe? If someone left their car in Sainsbury's for more than the three hours stipulated, should they then be charged with theft and hauled off to serve their time?

I can see the police being pretty fucking busy if every single contractual infraction was criminalised.

I'm glad you're not my tenant.

Ditto. My own landlord is thick enough as it is.

Actually, just thought of another one - should a tenant whose landlord doesn't fulfill her/his (nugatory) repairing obligations - eg doesn't fix the roof, doesn't service the boiler - be able to call the police and have the landlord arrested? After all, the landlord is taking money from the tenant and not sticking to their side of the bargain so that, according to you, is theft, right?

I think anyone who has provided a service, and had that service taken on the understanding that they would get paid for it, should be able to have their payments recovered by the police, or a state bailiff type service, yes.

That would include childminders and builders and such like. .

Obviously we see this differently, that's fine by me and the situation as it stands isn't going to change anyway. But you are missing the point that if business owners had some state protection from people who choose to take their service without paying, then people in the OPs position would not find it so difficult to find someone willing to provide her with the service she needs.

It would work in favour of people who rent on HB as long as they do what they are supposed to do anyway. And I believe it would ultimately make rents cheaper for tenants because more landlords wouldn't feel the need to pay agents, which would also mean that tenant wouldn't get charged ridiculous amounts of money just for a contract to be reprinted with a different date when it's time to renew the tenancy.

And yes, in my opinion landlords who don't provide the service they are paid for should be held accountable by the law.

There's going to be a lot of landlords going to jail in your brave new world then.

Also, in order for an act to be seen as theft, a person has to take property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.

wait, isn't a tenant who is not paying rent doing that? If you don't pay rent for May 2014, you are permanently denying that rent to landlord (they can never get the rent for May 2014). seems a bit grey to me.

I agree however that rental laws here are totally odd. It seems to me the opposite of sensible. it should be very very easy to evict delinquent tenants (it is not from what I gather), but there should also be much stronger protection against arbitrary removal and rent raises (there aren't). In many jurisdictions there is rent control; that is, even after the contractual period is over, you can't force a tenant out or raise rent arbitrarily high.

The other odd thing is that the solution people put forth here is social housing. Why not make rental laws sensible across the board so even private renters have security?

You are getting very hung up on the arrest/jail thing here. It's quite funny. You know there are other ways of dealing with things right?

You're the one banging on about prosecuting tenants. Although if we were going to go down the route of criminalising every breach of contract, then the million homes in the UK that are substandard (1 in 3 private rentals) would mean loads of landlords in jail. Which is just peachy by me:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/back-to-rising-damp-one-million-rented-homes-in-private-sector-are-substandard-9039201.html

There you go then!

Follow my plan, everyone's a winner!

Cruikshank - I'm LOVING your work on this thread.

Op-I hope you find somewhere soon, the system fucking sucks x

Thanks GaryShitpeas.

WooWoOwl, fair enough. I can think of loads of other things I'd like to see criminalised as well - noisy eaters/breathers for eg, or maybe people who say CWOISSON very loudly to prove how continental they are.

Actually, it's incredibly easy to evict tenants these days. No tenant who has taken up their tenancy post 1997 has any right to more than six months tenancy. If they are asked to leave, by way of a Section 21( end of tenancy) or section 8 ( non payment of rent) The landlord obtains a possession order from the courts. This can be done within a few weeks usually. The Possession order gives the tenant (who still has right of tenure at this point) 2 weeks to vacate. If the tenant has dependant children they have 2 weeks to apply for a 42 day extension to this. Once the possession order has expired, the landlord can apply for he court appointed bailiffs. The bailiffs would then remove the tenant and their belongings. A tenant who had trashed the place would be unlikely to be granted the 42 day extension, so the whole business can be done and dusted within a couple of months. The exiting tenant has no right of appeal and will probably be charged court costs. The short hold tenancy (which almost all tenants are on) affords no protection against eviction at all, or rent hikes, since it's legal duration is six months.
I would love to see my last landlords go to jail though, so maybe we should have jail for breach of contract.

Oh, and might I say- I have been though all of the above. My terrible crime? Asking for essential maintenence and repairs to be done. That was too much hassle so we got kicked out. Very upsetting for my child who went to school down the road, and whose best friends lived a few doors up. Lovely neighbours, nice garden, tough shit for us. Oh, and I paid my rent, but still lost my home. Never mind, eh, the landlord is now getting 100 quid a month more out of some other mug, so that's alright then.

two months? That's fast?

All your other complaints I agree with and mentioned that GOOD tenants should have much stronger protections against removal and rent raises.

Councils may be responsible but they are hampered by central government at every turn. The government so tightly control what they can and they can't do with their cash for housebuilding whilst at the same time kicking them for not delivering more homes. A mess of a planning system does not help either.

Sorry that you are going through this Bornfizzle. You sound so lovely and your DD is lucky to have you putting all this effort into her future.

I hope that something comes up for you soon.

Unfortunatly, written, two months is just a hopeful guideline. Our housing executives tend to ignore forget you once you've found somewhere to stay until they can arrange for a room in a hostel, after that the even longer wait for council housing starts. The wait wouldn't bother me as I'd be grateful for a place but my grandparents are honestly too old for a new born around 24/7. It breaks my heart that they do everything they can for me with a smile after such a bad rejection from ex DP's parents.

Thank you, Process but I really consider myself the lucky one to have my DD, aside my grandparents she's been my little rock.

littles technique would be a way t get a tenancy without disclosure. My only concern is that some - not all- LLs who don't use an agency are also those who don't do repairs, gas safety checks, carry out revenge evictions, etc. ppl who use an agency are going to behave legally as a bare minimum. But they are also going to know about the benefit, because of the checks agencies always carry out.

I think solving this at source needs the insurance industry to accept HB tenants, even if its at a premium, as long as the HB goes direct to the LL. and it needs the HB system not to cut benefits within an existing tenancy, because a bit part of the problem is sudden benefit cuts and ppl falling into arrears that way. The bedroom tax has not helped with this. Lots of good tenants have fallen not arrears when they get unexpected benefit cuts, as you would expect. There's not a lot they can do about it, so them being nice reliable ppl doesn't reassure the LL.

I think written means that two months isn't fast for a ll to evict a tenant. It bloody is fast if it's your home, and you thought you'd be in it long term.

OP, please go back to the counail and tell them you want to make an application for homelessness. This is separate from your existing housing registration. There will be a homelessness team, separate from the regular housing team. The status of homelessness means they have a legal obligation to house you. This is UK law, and not area specific. They don't want you to do this, but you must insist. Do they forget the CAB and Civic, Legal Advice Service. PM me anytime.

I feel for you :( we struggled to find somewhere for us and our 2 cats.

I'm also a landlord and would allow pets with higher deposit and agreement to clean carpets at end. I'd also not have problem with kids, as it is more likely tenants would be long term.

Oh and we can't allow anyone in housing benefit, only because it's stipulated in our permission to let mortgage contract :(

In a situation like yours firstchoice, if the council had agreed to act as your guarantor then your landlord would have got the assurance he needed and you would have go the home you needed. The risk would have been taken by the council, and as you would probably have been a brilliant tenant, they wouldn't have lost anything. But if they had, then they'd have been in a better position to deal with it than a landlord

Woowoo many LA's already do this its usually called the family bond scheme and its been around for many years,only problem is many LL/agents will not accept it so once you have been accepted on it often means nothing to your housing situation

It bloody is fast if it's your home, and you thought you'd be in it long term.

then you ought to pay rent if you want to keep it.

basically, if you don't pay rent, I think you should be out pronto.

it's shocking that you can reject a tenant if they are on HB.

needsasockamnesty

YES. And did you see on my thread that my 'LL' not only broke my SAT Tenancy but tried to charge me for a familiarisation visit by me and the kids earlier in the summer.

My child is, for now, forced to continue at the school that fails to address his disabilities (see other threads).

OP, I am so sorry for what you are going through.
We are walking in each others shoes, I think.
I don't have a newborn, but a child with a disablility and it STINKS re Landlords.

I offered HB, CTC, a gurantor, £1200 up front - No - 3 days before we are due to move in, 3 days before we start new schools, she decides I 'cant afford it' and chases me for £216 I 'owe' her for a familiaristion visit in the summer.

Yes I did firstchoice not that I'm stalking you or anything but you haven't taken your milk in and the area behind your wheelie bins is not comfy at all