Tenant broken boiler, refusing me access to check it
Discussion
Groat said:
LOL!! So do I, because when you start drilling into it it just makes no sense whatsoever.
The way UC HB operates the tenant DOES get the first rent sent to them. So naturally the initial process is watched like a hawk.
UC even in the midst of the pandemic haven't been in the slightest difficult to contact, nor do they "play difficult" with landlords/agents when they are contacted.
So if that FIRST PAYMENT is not paid over pdq by the tenant, UC are immediately informed by UC47 which requests further rent sent direct to landlord/agent, plus sanction on the rent thief's income benefit over a period of months till the stolen amount is repaid.
The thief has only one way to cease the sanction, which is to move.
Of course there's also an agent here who either knows nothing about UC processes or else is also howling at UC to get the matter sorted.
Pretending all this guff about tenant got initially safeguarded rent sent direct to her or UC wouldn't deal with the agent is just that - pretending.
Ok once in a blue moon UC does blunder and sends a rent that's supposed to be safeguarded to the tenant in error. But that's quite a big deal and brings UC management into things and all kinds of dramas and is NEVER and I mean NEVER either not taken seriously or left to just drift on into further payment after payment to the tenant.
TEN MONTHS!!!! Naaaaa. It's a wind up.
Sadly it's not a windup. The way UC HB operates the tenant DOES get the first rent sent to them. So naturally the initial process is watched like a hawk.
UC even in the midst of the pandemic haven't been in the slightest difficult to contact, nor do they "play difficult" with landlords/agents when they are contacted.
So if that FIRST PAYMENT is not paid over pdq by the tenant, UC are immediately informed by UC47 which requests further rent sent direct to landlord/agent, plus sanction on the rent thief's income benefit over a period of months till the stolen amount is repaid.
The thief has only one way to cease the sanction, which is to move.
Of course there's also an agent here who either knows nothing about UC processes or else is also howling at UC to get the matter sorted.
Pretending all this guff about tenant got initially safeguarded rent sent direct to her or UC wouldn't deal with the agent is just that - pretending.
Ok once in a blue moon UC does blunder and sends a rent that's supposed to be safeguarded to the tenant in error. But that's quite a big deal and brings UC management into things and all kinds of dramas and is NEVER and I mean NEVER either not taken seriously or left to just drift on into further payment after payment to the tenant.
TEN MONTHS!!!! Naaaaa. It's a wind up.
Tomorrow they'll be 8 month in arrears.
It's been a combination of us not knowing what we're doing and not understanding the processes surrounding Universal Credit, and bad advice from a letting agent who kept reminding us that UC were slow to make payments and that we should give it more time.
eldar said:
Good move. Priorities are get the rent paid directly to you. This shouldn't de difficult.
Small claim for outstanding rent, as you know where they live. Once they've moved, more difficult.
Get gas cut off as you cannot verify safety. Likewise power if it wasn't been certified as recent legislation requires.
Stop being nice. Play hardball, within the law.
Getting rent payments shouldn't be difficult, but I suspect it's going to be. As with last time, I suspect the tenant will do something that changes their circumstances and results in them having to start a new claim. That's exactly what happened last time. Literally days after UC telling us that we were setup to receive payment, the tenants circumstances changed which resulted in them having to start a new claim. In our case, UC didn't tell us that it had happened, so we sat here waiting for a payment after the letting agent told us UC were slow and to keep waiting a little longer. In the end, I contacted UC and they said "oh yes, the tenants circumstances changed".Small claim for outstanding rent, as you know where they live. Once they've moved, more difficult.
Get gas cut off as you cannot verify safety. Likewise power if it wasn't been certified as recent legislation requires.
Stop being nice. Play hardball, within the law.
TheBinarySheep said:
Getting rent payments shouldn't be difficult, but I suspect it's going to be. As with last time, I suspect the tenant will do something that changes their circumstances and results in them having to start a new claim. That's exactly what happened last time. Literally days after UC telling us that we were setup to receive payment, the tenants circumstances changed which resulted in them having to start a new claim. In our case, UC didn't tell us that it had happened, so we sat here waiting for a payment after the letting agent told us UC were slow and to keep waiting a little longer. In the end, I contacted UC and they said "oh yes, the tenants circumstances changed".
RIIIIGHT!! So all benefit tenants have to do is change circumstances and restart a claim and the details of the previous rent default and application of sanction just disappears from their file and the UC office just pretend none of it happened. RIIIIGHT!!! LOL!
And, of course, the agent just sits and watches this disaster unfold and thinks hmmmmmmm quite nice outside. Think I'll go fishing today......
ETA: What happened to the suggestion that you get all rent payment immediately suspended prior to investigation?
Edited by Groat on Wednesday 12th May 16:59
TheBinarySheep said:
Getting rent payments shouldn't be difficult, but I suspect it's going to be. As with last time, I suspect the tenant will do something that changes their circumstances and results in them having to start a new claim. That's exactly what happened last time. Literally days after UC telling us that we were setup to receive payment, the tenants circumstances changed which resulted in them having to start a new claim. In our case, UC didn't tell us that it had happened, so we sat here waiting for a payment after the letting agent told us UC were slow and to keep waiting a little longer. In the end, I contacted UC and they said "oh yes, the tenants circumstances changed".
Escalate this, they are misleading you. The tenant has stolen 8 months rent, the benefits office must act properly.You've been advised the best people to engage, do that now. You were advised so, ages ago, but ignored it. Do you actually want them out?
eldar said:
Escalate this, they are misleading you. The tenant has stolen 8 months rent, the benefits office must act properly.
You've been advised the best people to engage, do that now. You were advised so, ages ago, but ignored it. Do you actually want them out?
Who is it I've been advised to engage?You've been advised the best people to engage, do that now. You were advised so, ages ago, but ignored it. Do you actually want them out?
eldar said:
Escalate this, they are misleading you. The tenant has stolen 8 months rent, the benefits office must act properly.
You've been advised the best people to engage, do that now. You were advised so, ages ago, but ignored it. Do you actually want them out?
If a second payment of rent authorised as safeguarded is negligently sent the matter escalates itself to management. You've been advised the best people to engage, do that now. You were advised so, ages ago, but ignored it. Do you actually want them out?
O and if you re-read 1st post it's NINE months regardless of what Mr Sheep thinks.
Of course UC have to be made aware of all this carry-on to be able to deal with it, so for months, prior to the agent being appointed, nobody was apparently bothered to let UC know.
I don't know nor does anyone else I know, what happens if a 3rd safeguarded rent is sent in error to tenant. In the old days it'd be escalated to senior HB management. But if its not the same (and even if it was) I think if they gifted 3 payments to a thief I'd be on to local MP to initiate a red flag enquiry which, in the old days, would obligate it to be dealt with immediately.
Actually after payment 3 I'd also get further payments suspended until it was sorted out and then payment paid out appropriately (ie to me).
Then there's the agents. He was told to get an agent experienced in dealing with this type of issue and tenancy. Instead he gets a conman who makes an agreement to be retained on monthly fee. Bonkers! And then seems to have gone about showing Mr Sheep why it was important to get an agent experienced in dealing with this type of issue and tenancy.
There's still hope in this. But I don't think Mr Sheep is much interested any more. So next it's lose all hope of getting anything out of it by evicting the tenant etc etc.
AFAIK right now getting that done quickly in England is a bit tricky, so you're certainly talking months. Months of rent which COULD be stacking up in a suspension account at UC, but heeeeeyyyyy! Why do that when you can get a few more payments to the thief?
It's a wind up.
Edited by Groat on Wednesday 12th May 17:53
TheBinarySheep said:
eldar said:
Escalate this, they are misleading you. The tenant has stolen 8 months rent, the benefits office must act properly.
You've been advised the best people to engage, do that now. You were advised so, ages ago, but ignored it. Do you actually want them out?
Who is it I've been advised to engage?You've been advised the best people to engage, do that now. You were advised so, ages ago, but ignored it. Do you actually want them out?
Groat said:
If a second payment of rent authorised as safeguarded is negligently sent the matter escalates itself to management.
O and if you re-read 1st post it's NINE months regardless of what Mr Sheep thinks.
Of course UC have to be made aware of all this carry-on to be able to deal with it, so for months, prior to the agent being appointed, nobody was apparently bothered to let UC know.
I don't know nor does anyone else I know, what happens if a 3rd safeguarded rent is sent in error to tenant. In the old days it'd be escalated to senior HB management. But if its not the same (and even if it was) I think if they gifted 3 payments to a thief I'd be on to local MP to initiate a red flag enquiry which, in the old days, would shut obligate it to be dealt with immediately.
Actually after payment 3 I'd also get further payments suspended until it was sorted out and then payment paid out appropriately (ie to me).
Then there's the agents. He was told to get an agent experienced in dealing with this type of issue and tenancy. Instead he gets a conman who makes an agreement to be retained on monthly fee. Bonkers! And then seems to have gone about showing Mr Sheep why it was important to get an agent experienced in dealing with this type of issue and tenancy.
There's still hope in this. But I don't think Mr Sheep is much interested any more. So next it's lose all hope of getting anything out of it by evicting the tenant etc etc.
AFAIK right now getting that done quickly in England is a bit tricky, so you're certainly talking months. Months of rent which COULD be stacking up in a suspension account at UC, but heeeeeyyyyy! Why do that when you can get a few more payments to the thief?
It's a wind up.
As I've already mentioned, I found a letting agent would take a property on in this area Sadly many of the letting agents around here won't touch them, so my options were limited.O and if you re-read 1st post it's NINE months regardless of what Mr Sheep thinks.
Of course UC have to be made aware of all this carry-on to be able to deal with it, so for months, prior to the agent being appointed, nobody was apparently bothered to let UC know.
I don't know nor does anyone else I know, what happens if a 3rd safeguarded rent is sent in error to tenant. In the old days it'd be escalated to senior HB management. But if its not the same (and even if it was) I think if they gifted 3 payments to a thief I'd be on to local MP to initiate a red flag enquiry which, in the old days, would shut obligate it to be dealt with immediately.
Actually after payment 3 I'd also get further payments suspended until it was sorted out and then payment paid out appropriately (ie to me).
Then there's the agents. He was told to get an agent experienced in dealing with this type of issue and tenancy. Instead he gets a conman who makes an agreement to be retained on monthly fee. Bonkers! And then seems to have gone about showing Mr Sheep why it was important to get an agent experienced in dealing with this type of issue and tenancy.
There's still hope in this. But I don't think Mr Sheep is much interested any more. So next it's lose all hope of getting anything out of it by evicting the tenant etc etc.
AFAIK right now getting that done quickly in England is a bit tricky, so you're certainly talking months. Months of rent which COULD be stacking up in a suspension account at UC, but heeeeeyyyyy! Why do that when you can get a few more payments to the thief?
It's a wind up.
I've already spoken with UC, they've not suspended the tenants payments, but they've logged the situation as a possible overpayment of benefits to the claimant and I'm waiting to hear back to see what they're planning to do about it.
It does sound like you're being Mr Nice Guy here. It's time to stop that and imagine your tenant is some nasty B******d who's just mugged your granny for her pension. Get angry and start making a noise (benefits office, MP etc) until you get the answers you want. Get the gas and electricity disconnected (you're liable if there's a problem because they haven't been inspected/maintained properly) and speak to landlord action and get them on the case asap.
Rick101 said:
Is the new landlord Groat?
Nice easy earner for him!
It is NOT. Nice easy earner for him!
If it was I'd have sorted the UC, including the sanction, and told the thing in the dwelling as follows:
"You are now my slave. You only have one job. Your job is to keep living in this house which you are perfectly free to abuse at will. If you do, when you leave, malicious damage will be reported to police and repaired via insurance.
Subsequent rent will be getting paid to me. And what you have stolen will also be repaid month by month from your income benefit.
You have tried to get a council house, but the reference I gave you will prevent that, as it will prevent you from getting any property from anyone else who takes references.
You might find someone who will take you without references. But I think they will not be taking you without money of any kind and you neither have money nor are capable of getting money.
From time to time you will get a note from me advising you to contact me to arrange one or other of the inspections law demands. Either you will co-operate with this, or you won't. If you don't and subsequently there is a disaster connected to this, I will wave the verification that I tried on multiple occasions to do these checks and was prevented by you from doing so. This will exonerate me from responsibility and so I really couldn't care less whether you co-operate or not.
We shan't be meeting again, and it will be a pleasure to be rid of you one day.
Any communication with me should hereafter be made via my agent whose details you have.
Now be about your business.
Goodbye.
I'm not getting involved too much in this, but Groat you're not right in everything you say. Minor-ish details that you've got wrong throughout, but nevertheless you're not the oracle on this matter I'm afraid - and despite your extensive LL experience which I don't doubt, it would be nice to see bit of considered and informed advice rather than "OMG how STUPID are YOU!" and then give advice which has holes in it.
It's very tricky to unpick what's happened here, without the required detail (which none of us will get, including Mr Sheep), but I do feel for the OP and think he's being sensible in wanting the path of least resistance right now - as I mentioned before, if she's after a deposit and you think she's serious about moving, she has DHP avenue.
That post previously about the high court avenue was interesting - although I have no knowledge or idea as to whether it's currently supported by legislation.
It's very tricky to unpick what's happened here, without the required detail (which none of us will get, including Mr Sheep), but I do feel for the OP and think he's being sensible in wanting the path of least resistance right now - as I mentioned before, if she's after a deposit and you think she's serious about moving, she has DHP avenue.
That post previously about the high court avenue was interesting - although I have no knowledge or idea as to whether it's currently supported by legislation.
https://www.hceoa.org.uk/faqs/do-you-need-the-serv...
Link to the High Court Enforcement Officers Association
Link to the High Court Enforcement Officers Association
TheBinarySheep said:
As I've already mentioned, I found a letting agent would take a property on in this area Sadly many of the letting agents around here won't touch them, so my options were limited.
I've already spoken with UC, they've not suspended the tenants payments, but they've logged the situation as a possible overpayment of benefits to the claimant and I'm waiting to hear back to see what they're planning to do about it.
AHA!!!!! AHA!!!!!! We have at least engaged UC.I've already spoken with UC, they've not suspended the tenants payments, but they've logged the situation as a possible overpayment of benefits to the claimant and I'm waiting to hear back to see what they're planning to do about it.
If you have explained the entire position to UC, presumably dealing with management, OF COURSE they'll suspend further payments to the tenant.
This isn't an OVERPAYMENT scenario at all. It has nothing top do with overpayment. Overpayment arises when a claimant or agent receives a payment to which they weren't entitled. For example, and most commonly, when rent continues to be paid after the tenancy has ceased. Or indeed when the claim ceases due to change in circumstances which can pretty well only be if the tenant has returned to work, or is in receipt of any further income which removes the need for support. And the picture you've been painting doesn't suggest that's happened.
s. Utter, utter Bear-n said:
I'm not getting involved too much in this, but Groat you're not right in everything you say. Minor-ish details that you've got wrong throughout, but nevertheless you're not the oracle on this matter I'm afraid - and despite your extensive LL experience which I don't doubt, it would be nice to see bit of considered and informed advice rather than "OMG how STUPID are YOU!" and then give advice which has holes in it.
It's very tricky to unpick what's happened here, without the required detail (which none of us will get, including Mr Sheep), but I do feel for the OP and think he's being sensible in wanting the path of least resistance right now - as I mentioned before, if she's after a deposit and you think she's serious about moving, she has DHP avenue.
That post previously about the high court avenue was interesting - although I have no knowledge or idea as to whether it's currently supported by legislation.
You're probably right. But please do be more specific about these 'minor -ish details.' I've given him what I can based on the details available which is far from either consistent or complete. And it would be rather more 'helpful' if you could straighten out my minor-ish mistakes and add in some advice on how to get his rent sorted.It's very tricky to unpick what's happened here, without the required detail (which none of us will get, including Mr Sheep), but I do feel for the OP and think he's being sensible in wanting the path of least resistance right now - as I mentioned before, if she's after a deposit and you think she's serious about moving, she has DHP avenue.
That post previously about the high court avenue was interesting - although I have no knowledge or idea as to whether it's currently supported by legislation.
IF this UC rent disaster turns out to be error on UC's part (which I doubt) he MAY have a chance of getting it repaid to him. But on what's been described I'd say they're going to turn round and say "no mate, we had no idea this was going on because nobody made us aware of it". Time will tell.
Incidentally, if you think in the circumstances she'll get anywhere near a DHP payment given she's already misappropriated some 1000's of ££s of HB money, whether by 'overpayment' or simply retaining rather than paying it, you're dreaming.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff