Tenant broken boiler, refusing me access to check it
Discussion
Wings said:
TheBinarySheep said:
So, another update.
In my last post I said that we'd managed to get a managed payment setup. Well, I still hadn't heard anything from that so I chased up Universal Credit and emailed a couple of people who's email addresses I still had from previous correspondence. On Friday, I got two emails from a guy at UC, the first said that the managed payment couldn't be processed because it wasn't on the correct form, then I got a second email minutes later to say that the managed payment had been stopped because the tenants circumstances had been changed. I've emailed the guy back to try and find out which reason it is.
We've already initiated court action, I'm just disappointed that it doesn't look like we're going to receive a penny in rent while that's ongoing (which could be months).
I'm praying that the tenant digs their heels in and stays in the property until the bailiffs turn up to turf them out, because I'll be there, taking in the pleasure of seeing them being turfed out onto the street like the rubbish that they are.
I am not certain at what stage you are at in obtaining repossession.In my last post I said that we'd managed to get a managed payment setup. Well, I still hadn't heard anything from that so I chased up Universal Credit and emailed a couple of people who's email addresses I still had from previous correspondence. On Friday, I got two emails from a guy at UC, the first said that the managed payment couldn't be processed because it wasn't on the correct form, then I got a second email minutes later to say that the managed payment had been stopped because the tenants circumstances had been changed. I've emailed the guy back to try and find out which reason it is.
We've already initiated court action, I'm just disappointed that it doesn't look like we're going to receive a penny in rent while that's ongoing (which could be months).
I'm praying that the tenant digs their heels in and stays in the property until the bailiffs turn up to turf them out, because I'll be there, taking in the pleasure of seeing them being turfed out onto the street like the rubbish that they are.
Edited by TheBinarySheep on Monday 5th July 15:06
You have brought this situation upon yourself, as we all can do at times. It must be nearly twelve months since you have gone without rental payment. In May when your tenant sought an agreed payment to vacate the property, I was one that in the same situation, as I have been, then I would have bit the bullet, paid the monies and obtained repossession.
Believe me with bailiffs repossession, there will be no pleasure for you, particularly when you eventually view inside the property.
Fastpedeller said:
I seem to recall that landlords were unable to evict (or time scale extended) due to Covid. In fact Covid has been a good excuse for 'normal procedures' to be forgotten/relaxed for some workplaces.
This is it. While we've not helped ourselves by leaving things too long before taking action, we still would have ended up well out of pocket. With the new eviction rules that came in as a result of Covid, it meant that you could issue a section 8 once your tenant was in 2 month of arrears, but you had to give the tenant 6 month notice. The alternative was to wait until the tenant was 6 month in arrears and then you could issue a section 8 with only 1 months notice.The tenant stopped paying rent back in October, if we'd been on the ball and issued a section 8 in November, we still would have had to wait until May before we could take any further action. I know that because of Covid the courts have a backlog, but let's assume that the court process would take 1 month, we'd still be looking at 9 month of receiving no rent that's around £3600 in lost rent, £1200 in mortgage payments, and £1500 in eviction costs... total cost £6,300 and that doesn't include any repairs we're going to need to do either.
As it stands, because we messed about and delayed, we're looking at a loss of around £7,000.
It's been pointed out many times in this thread that we've made mistakes, and I'm happy to hold me hand up and agree. However, the existing system that's in place is far too biased towards tenants, and I think our situation highlights that given that even if we'd done everything right and had been on the ball, we'd still be looking at fairly hefty losses. We're just normal people living on an ex-council estate, we're not rich, but thankful that we're in a position where these losses won't massively impact us on a day to day basis, but with that being said, it's not right that it's so easy for tenants to be able to effectively steal thousands from another individual and there be absolutely no punishment for it. These tenants will move onto another sucker landlords and rinse and repeat.
Thankfully, we don't stress about it anymore. It is what it is, and eventually we'll get it sorted out. We'll take the financial hit and move on with our lives. As long us and kids are healthy, then anything else is a bonus.
Edited by TheBinarySheep on Wednesday 7th July 10:31
TheBinarySheep said:
This is it. While we've not helped ourselves by leaving things too long before taking action, we still would have ended up well out of pocket. With the new eviction rules that came in as a result of Covid, it meant that you could issue a section 8 once your tenant was in 2 month of arrears, but you had to give the tenant 6 month notice. The alternative was to wait until the tenant was 6 month in arrears and then you could issue a section 8 with only 1 months notice.
The tenant stopped paying rent back in October, if we'd been on the ball and issued a section 8 in November, we still would have had to wait until May before we could take any further action. I know that because of Covid the courts have a backlog, but let's assume that the court process would take 1 month, we'd still be looking at 9 month of receiving no rent that's around £3600 in lost rent, £1200 in mortgage payments, and £1500 in eviction costs... total cost £6,300 and that doesn't include any repairs we're going to need to do either.
As it stands, because we messed about and delayed, we're looking at a loss of around £7,000.
It's been pointed out many times in this thread that we've made mistakes, and I'm happy to hold me hand up and agree. However, the existing system that's in place is far too biased towards tenants, and I think our situation highlights that given that even if we'd done everything right and had been on the ball, we'd still be looking at fairly hefty losses. We're just normal people living on an ex-council estate, we're not rich, but thankful that we're in a position where these losses won't massively impact us on a day to day basis, but with that being said, it's not right that it's so easy for tenants to be able to effectively steal thousands from another individual and there be absolutely no punishment for it.
You are overstating this, you are not out of pocket for the mortgage payment as you'd have paid that to achieve the rent. Also how much deposit did you take and what will you be entitled to keep in circumstances?The tenant stopped paying rent back in October, if we'd been on the ball and issued a section 8 in November, we still would have had to wait until May before we could take any further action. I know that because of Covid the courts have a backlog, but let's assume that the court process would take 1 month, we'd still be looking at 9 month of receiving no rent that's around £3600 in lost rent, £1200 in mortgage payments, and £1500 in eviction costs... total cost £6,300 and that doesn't include any repairs we're going to need to do either.
As it stands, because we messed about and delayed, we're looking at a loss of around £7,000.
It's been pointed out many times in this thread that we've made mistakes, and I'm happy to hold me hand up and agree. However, the existing system that's in place is far too biased towards tenants, and I think our situation highlights that given that even if we'd done everything right and had been on the ball, we'd still be looking at fairly hefty losses. We're just normal people living on an ex-council estate, we're not rich, but thankful that we're in a position where these losses won't massively impact us on a day to day basis, but with that being said, it's not right that it's so easy for tenants to be able to effectively steal thousands from another individual and there be absolutely no punishment for it.
What are your options re debt recovery, can you go small claims court, might mean you get some back, worst case the nightmare tennant gets a CCJ
bennno said:
You are overstating this, you are not out of pocket for the mortgage payment as you'd have paid that to achieve the rent. Also how much deposit did you take and what will you be entitled to keep in circumstances?
What are your options re debt recovery, can you go small claims court, might mean you get some back, worst case the nightmare tennant gets a CCJ
If you think in terms of exactly what it has cost us, then yes, we're only about £2,800 - £3,000 out of pocket, that's with us paying the mortgage and legal fees. What are your options re debt recovery, can you go small claims court, might mean you get some back, worst case the nightmare tennant gets a CCJ
Because we're in negative equity with this property, the rent payments were allocated to also being paid off the mortgage. We're still left in a position were we are personally going to have to fund that shortfall.
Regardless of how accurate my figures are, it still highlights that landlords have very little protection against tenants like this, even more so in run down areas where good tenants are extremely difficult to come by.
As for trying to recover the arrears, we'd just be throwing more money away, and the tenants probably know that.
OP it seems to me that you have been very unlucky through all of this, not that that excuses the tenant's behaviour, but I think you should get some professional advice from a lawyer who specialises in this area, if you can find such a person.
Surely the tenancy agreement allows the landlord to enter the premises subject to notice to carry out inspection and repairs? If the tenant is repeatedly obstructing that, then they are in breach. Can you use that as a basis for eviction? Just a thought.
Surely the tenancy agreement allows the landlord to enter the premises subject to notice to carry out inspection and repairs? If the tenant is repeatedly obstructing that, then they are in breach. Can you use that as a basis for eviction? Just a thought.
Hawkshaw said:
OP it seems to me that you have been very unlucky through all of this, not that that excuses the tenant's behaviour, but I think you should get some professional advice from a lawyer who specialises in this area, if you can find such a person.
Surely the tenancy agreement allows the landlord to enter the premises subject to notice to carry out inspection and repairs? If the tenant is repeatedly obstructing that, then they are in breach. Can you use that as a basis for eviction? Just a thought.
We're already past that stage now, they've already been issued with notice and the process of taking them to court to get possession has already been started.Surely the tenancy agreement allows the landlord to enter the premises subject to notice to carry out inspection and repairs? If the tenant is repeatedly obstructing that, then they are in breach. Can you use that as a basis for eviction? Just a thought.
TheBinarySheep said:
Thankfully, we don't stress about it anymore. It is what it is, and eventually we'll get it sorted out. We'll take the financial hit and move on with our lives. As long us and kids are healthy, then anything else is a bonus.
Having followd this from the very start, this is the bet part of the whole thread.Edited by TheBinarySheep on Wednesday 7th July 10:31
I was woried about your mental wellbeing, but it seems tha you have accepted that that the system has shafted you as you are not a professional LL.
Things have hcanged and you have taken on some sage advice provided here, but it still results in a financial deficit.
At least you are not losing your hair over it as well now as that can cause even more damage.
I think the idea of informing MP is a good one. I wish you the best in your endeavours and hope there is a result that doesn't let the scum get away.
TheBinarySheep said:
bennno said:
You are overstating this, you are not out of pocket for the mortgage payment as you'd have paid that to achieve the rent. Also how much deposit did you take and what will you be entitled to keep in circumstances?
What are your options re debt recovery, can you go small claims court, might mean you get some back, worst case the nightmare tennant gets a CCJ
If you think in terms of exactly what it has cost us, then yes, we're only about £2,800 - £3,000 out of pocket, that's with us paying the mortgage and legal fees. What are your options re debt recovery, can you go small claims court, might mean you get some back, worst case the nightmare tennant gets a CCJ
Because we're in negative equity with this property, the rent payments were allocated to also being paid off the mortgage. We're still left in a position were we are personally going to have to fund that shortfall.
Regardless of how accurate my figures are, it still highlights that landlords have very little protection against tenants like this, even more so in run down areas where good tenants are extremely difficult to come by.
As for trying to recover the arrears, we'd just be throwing more money away, and the tenants probably know that.
How much deposit can you keep?
Meeten-5dulx said:
I think the idea of informing MP is a good one. I wish you the best in your endeavours and hope there is a result that doesn't let the scum get away.
I don't know, landlords aren't exactly the political flavour of the month. I should think most Labour MPs and a lot of Con ones would be inclined to take the sob story tenant's side here (despite the history we have seen play out).sevensfun said:
bigandclever said:
Groat’s going to go mad.
Just what I was thinking...Interesting to hear if he believes this could have been done better...!
The thing only ever needed managed by someone who knows how to handle that type of tenancy, and who knows how to deal with UC claims.
But it seems there's no such agent available in this particular area, although it begs the question of how anyone else is managing to operate successfully in this allegedly run-down area which is likely to have many UC claimants.
As to the UC claim itself, the first defaulted/missing rent payment SHOULD HAVE prompted communication with UC. The default reported by online form, and request made for subsequent direct payment plus sanction for outstanding amount. Contact SHOULD HAVE been established with the tenant's case manager at as early a stage as possible, and regular communication continued until the matter was resolved. Any further default SHOULD HAVE created an escalation of the matter to the supervisory level of case management, with case manager being copied into correspondence.
You do get the occasional inept-ish UC case manager, but inept supervisors are pretty rare. Odd though it may seem, they generally do take a bit of pride in their work - the sorting out of claims - and they are also all taxpayers like you or me and aren't generally at all amused by claimants gaming the UC system or defrauding it.
This is a once in a blue moon scenario that I've never experienced in 45 years of dealing with HB/DSS/UC tenancies. Since the advent of UC I've never had to go 'higher' than supervisor level to get a particularly difficult or complex matter sorted out but I suppose continuing the escalation beyond the supervisor would be the normal next step in the process.
Unfortunately the OP's still at the stage of playing email pingpong with randoms at UC rather than being at the stage of first name terms with case manager and supervisor who've provided him with direct mobile numbers etc etc etc so this one's probably got a good while to run.
"Well, I still hadn't heard anything from that so I chased up Universal Credit and emailed a couple of people who's email addresses I still had from previous correspondence. On Friday, I got two emails from a guy at UC, the first said that the managed payment couldn't be processed because it wasn't on the correct form, then I got a second email minutes later to say that the managed payment had been stopped because the tenants circumstances had been changed. I've emailed the guy back to try and find out which reason it is".
Anyway, here's hoping the eviction isn't being handled as ineptly as everything else. Hopefully it's not on the grounds of non-payment of rent. Because I wouldn't think it'd be very hard to defend seeing as there's an ongoing (albeit unresolved) matter of a claim for rent assistance in progress!!
Hey, you never know. That might just be the trigger for the resolve of the claim!
Edited by Groat on Wednesday 7th July 13:02
Groat said:
LOL!
The thing only ever needed managed by someone who knows how to handle that type of tenancy, and who knows how to deal with UC claims.
But it seems there's no such agent available in this particular area, although it begs the question of how anyone else is managing to operate successfully in this allegedly run-down area which is likely to have many UC claimants.
As to the UC claim itself, the first defaulted/missing rent payment SHOULD HAVE prompted communication with UC. The default reported by online form, and request made for subsequent direct payment plus sanction for outstanding amount. Contact SHOULD HAVE been established with the tenant's case manager at as early a stage as possible, and regular communication continued until the matter was resolved. Any further default SHOULD HAVE created an escalation of the matter to the supervisory level of case management, with case manager being copied into correspondence.
You do get the occasional inept-ish UC case manager, but inept supervisors are pretty rare. Odd though it may seem, they generally do take a bit of pride in their work - the sorting out of claims - and they are also all taxpayers like you or me and aren't generally at all amused by claimants gaming the UC system or defrauding it.
This is a once in a blue moon scenario that I've never experienced in 45 years of dealing with HB/DSS/UC tenancies. Since the advent of UC I've never had to go 'higher' than supervisor level to get a particularly difficult or complex matter sorted out but I suppose continuing the escalation beyond the supervisor would be the normal next step in the process.
Unfortunately the OP's still at the stage of playing email pingpong with randoms at UC rather than being at the stage of first name terms with case manager and supervisor who've provided him with direct mobile numbers etc etc etc so this one's probably got a good while to run.
"Well, I still hadn't heard anything from that so I chased up Universal Credit and emailed a couple of people who's email addresses I still had from previous correspondence. On Friday, I got two emails from a guy at UC, the first said that the managed payment couldn't be processed because it wasn't on the correct form, then I got a second email minutes later to say that the managed payment had been stopped because the tenants circumstances had been changed. I've emailed the guy back to try and find out which reason it is".
Anyway, here's hoping the eviction isn't being handled as ineptly as everything else. Hopefully it's not on the grounds of non-payment of rent. Because I wouldn't think it'd be very hard to defend seeing as there's an ongoing (albeit unresolved) matter of a claim for rent assistance in progress!!
Hey, you never know. That might just be the trigger for the resolve of the claim!
This is the issue with UC at the minute, I can't get past the person on the phone. They just say they can't pass me onto a manager/supervisor, if I want to complain I need to do it in writing.The thing only ever needed managed by someone who knows how to handle that type of tenancy, and who knows how to deal with UC claims.
But it seems there's no such agent available in this particular area, although it begs the question of how anyone else is managing to operate successfully in this allegedly run-down area which is likely to have many UC claimants.
As to the UC claim itself, the first defaulted/missing rent payment SHOULD HAVE prompted communication with UC. The default reported by online form, and request made for subsequent direct payment plus sanction for outstanding amount. Contact SHOULD HAVE been established with the tenant's case manager at as early a stage as possible, and regular communication continued until the matter was resolved. Any further default SHOULD HAVE created an escalation of the matter to the supervisory level of case management, with case manager being copied into correspondence.
You do get the occasional inept-ish UC case manager, but inept supervisors are pretty rare. Odd though it may seem, they generally do take a bit of pride in their work - the sorting out of claims - and they are also all taxpayers like you or me and aren't generally at all amused by claimants gaming the UC system or defrauding it.
This is a once in a blue moon scenario that I've never experienced in 45 years of dealing with HB/DSS/UC tenancies. Since the advent of UC I've never had to go 'higher' than supervisor level to get a particularly difficult or complex matter sorted out but I suppose continuing the escalation beyond the supervisor would be the normal next step in the process.
Unfortunately the OP's still at the stage of playing email pingpong with randoms at UC rather than being at the stage of first name terms with case manager and supervisor who've provided him with direct mobile numbers etc etc etc so this one's probably got a good while to run.
"Well, I still hadn't heard anything from that so I chased up Universal Credit and emailed a couple of people who's email addresses I still had from previous correspondence. On Friday, I got two emails from a guy at UC, the first said that the managed payment couldn't be processed because it wasn't on the correct form, then I got a second email minutes later to say that the managed payment had been stopped because the tenants circumstances had been changed. I've emailed the guy back to try and find out which reason it is".
Anyway, here's hoping the eviction isn't being handled as ineptly as everything else. Hopefully it's not on the grounds of non-payment of rent. Because I wouldn't think it'd be very hard to defend seeing as there's an ongoing (albeit unresolved) matter of a claim for rent assistance in progress!!
Hey, you never know. That might just be the trigger for the resolve of the claim!
Edited by Groat on Wednesday 7th July 13:02
I've been told on another forum that UC see the payment they make for rent as belonging to the tenant, and that it's entirely up to the tenant whether they agree/accept a management payment arrangement. I have no idea how true that actually is mind. If those claiming UC don't pass the rent onto the landlord, they can't be sanctioned for it. Again, no idea how true that is, it's just the response I got on a landlord forum on a thread that's since been deleted for some reason.
As for the eviction, it's being handled by Landlord Action, and they were great handling the section 8.
TheBinarySheep said:
This is the issue with UC at the minute, I can't get past the person on the phone. They just say they can't pass me onto a manager/supervisor, if I want to complain I need to do it in writing.
I've been told on another forum that UC see the payment they make for rent as belonging to the tenant, and that it's entirely up to the tenant whether they agree/accept a management payment arrangement. I have no idea how true that actually is mind. If those claiming UC don't pass the rent onto the landlord, they can't be sanctioned for it. Again, no idea how true that is, it's just the response I got on a landlord forum on a thread that's since been deleted for some reason.
As for the eviction, it's being handled by Landlord Action, and they were great handling the section 8.
It's not true that it's up to the tenant.I've been told on another forum that UC see the payment they make for rent as belonging to the tenant, and that it's entirely up to the tenant whether they agree/accept a management payment arrangement. I have no idea how true that actually is mind. If those claiming UC don't pass the rent onto the landlord, they can't be sanctioned for it. Again, no idea how true that is, it's just the response I got on a landlord forum on a thread that's since been deleted for some reason.
As for the eviction, it's being handled by Landlord Action, and they were great handling the section 8.
To start from the top, an MPTL (which you're asking for) is one of three different measures in what's known as an APA (alternative payment arrangement). These are where payments of UC are different to the norm. They consist of more frequent payments, split payments (these are of no interest to you) and then a <deep breath> Managed payment of housing cost element to the landlord (MPTL)
When deciding whether to pay via an APA, there are Tier 1 & Tier 2 factors to consider in deciding whether appropriate - these describe circumstances in which the APA (in your case, an MPTL)) should be put in place. It's a safeguarding thing essentially, and one of the automatic "yup, put that in place now - do not pass go" is an accumulation of 2 months worth of rent arrears.
More exciting information can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/univers...
Bear-n said:
It's not true that it's up to the tenant.
To start from the top, an MPTL (which you're asking for) is one of three different measures in what's known as an APA (alternative payment arrangement). These are where payments of UC are different to the norm. They consist of more frequent payments, split payments (these are of no interest to you) and then a <deep breath> Managed payment of housing cost element to the landlord (MPTL)
When deciding whether to pay via an APA, there are Tier 1 & Tier 2 factors to consider in deciding whether appropriate - these describe circumstances in which the APA (in your case, an MPTL)) should be put in place. It's a safeguarding thing essentially, and one of the automatic "yup, put that in place now - do not pass go" is an accumulation of 2 months worth of rent arrears.
More exciting information can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/univers...
Thanks, that's good to know.To start from the top, an MPTL (which you're asking for) is one of three different measures in what's known as an APA (alternative payment arrangement). These are where payments of UC are different to the norm. They consist of more frequent payments, split payments (these are of no interest to you) and then a <deep breath> Managed payment of housing cost element to the landlord (MPTL)
When deciding whether to pay via an APA, there are Tier 1 & Tier 2 factors to consider in deciding whether appropriate - these describe circumstances in which the APA (in your case, an MPTL)) should be put in place. It's a safeguarding thing essentially, and one of the automatic "yup, put that in place now - do not pass go" is an accumulation of 2 months worth of rent arrears.
More exciting information can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/univers...
I think tomorrow I'll ring UC and see if I can get the tenants case working to get in touch with me so I can find out what the hell has gone on and is going on. I'll also see if I can find out how the tenant is able to keep cancelling these arrangements.
In the meantime, I've submitted yet another UC47 just on the off chance that we do get somewhere while we're waiting for the legal people to do their thing.
It looks like UC have put a payment in our account for the rent this month.... which is odd given that I've got emails saying otherwise.
EDIT: It might be a false alarm. I've spoke to UC and they're saying that the payment isn't from them.
When we used to receive rent for the tenant, we used to get £389.99, and this week we've had a random payment into the same bank account for £389.98. All on it is a 9 digit number and the bank can't tell us who sent it.
EDIT: It might be a false alarm. I've spoke to UC and they're saying that the payment isn't from them.
When we used to receive rent for the tenant, we used to get £389.99, and this week we've had a random payment into the same bank account for £389.98. All on it is a 9 digit number and the bank can't tell us who sent it.
Edited by TheBinarySheep on Wednesday 14th July 10:46
TheBinarySheep said:
As for trying to recover the arrears, we'd just be throwing more money away, and the tenants probably know that.
As a LL myself, don't let the tenant away scot free go to court and get a CCJ against them at least it will show up if another LL does a credit check and it will screw up ex tenant's credit history.
hellorent said:
As a LL myself, don't let the tenant away scot free go to court and get a CCJ against them at least it will show up
if another LL does a credit check and it will screw up ex tenant's credit history.
Definitely do this. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they have a CCJ or multiples already.if another LL does a credit check and it will screw up ex tenant's credit history.
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome
After speaking with three different people at UC the other day, all of them more or less said the payment that we'd received wasn't from them.
Yet this morning, I've received a letter from DWP confirming that the payment is for rent.
I honestly have no idea what sort of people UC have manning the phones, but not a single one that I've spoken to appears to know what they're doing.
Yet this morning, I've received a letter from DWP confirming that the payment is for rent.
I honestly have no idea what sort of people UC have manning the phones, but not a single one that I've spoken to appears to know what they're doing.
TheBinarySheep said:
After speaking with three different people at UC the other day, all of them more or less said the payment that we'd received wasn't from them.
Yet this morning, I've received a letter from DWP confirming that the payment is for rent.
I honestly have no idea what sort of people UC have manning the phones, but not a single one that I've spoken to appears to know what they're doing.
My communications with sorting out issues with payments manly go via the app provided, and work well. Actually speaking to someone is hit and miss, unless you get their name and confirm by email.Yet this morning, I've received a letter from DWP confirming that the payment is for rent.
I honestly have no idea what sort of people UC have manning the phones, but not a single one that I've spoken to appears to know what they're doing.
The level of incompetence from them in your case is surreal.
Another small update. I submitted another UC47 at the beginning of July. I've had a call from the tenants case manager to setup that UC47. While I had the guy on the phone I got some further information.
What seems to be happening is that the tenant is requesting that UC close their current contract with UC, and then she's starting a new one. Doing this then cancels any UC47's that were setup on the closed contract, hence why our managed payments keep getting stopped.
The guy confirmed that the payment we received earlier this month wasn't for the tenants most recent contract, but from their last contract, so what seems to have happened is, we setup a UC47, the tenant stopped the contract, but in the meantime UC had already processed a payment so that still went through and we received it. Knowing this, what we're going to do it submit a UC47 every month to try and see if we can catch a payment before she has chance to cancel her contract.
The case manager at UC has placed a note on the account explaining that the tenant appears to be closing contracts to avoid making rent payments, and to not close the account, but I don't know what impact that'll actually have.
What seems to be happening is that the tenant is requesting that UC close their current contract with UC, and then she's starting a new one. Doing this then cancels any UC47's that were setup on the closed contract, hence why our managed payments keep getting stopped.
The guy confirmed that the payment we received earlier this month wasn't for the tenants most recent contract, but from their last contract, so what seems to have happened is, we setup a UC47, the tenant stopped the contract, but in the meantime UC had already processed a payment so that still went through and we received it. Knowing this, what we're going to do it submit a UC47 every month to try and see if we can catch a payment before she has chance to cancel her contract.
The case manager at UC has placed a note on the account explaining that the tenant appears to be closing contracts to avoid making rent payments, and to not close the account, but I don't know what impact that'll actually have.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff