What a brilliant post Paul.

Following on from this I have just had (another) positive match to a new application today to the LRS database, with a previous rent default of £2,700. And after speaking to their previous landlord their behaviour sounds like it's on a par with this other recent forum post ! !

I printed the Lifestyle report off and showed them and they just shrugged and said they must have forgotten...!

More proof that LRS can and does stop rent loss and anti-social behaviour in all of our communities.

Thanks again LRS.

An excellent post, and a subject I know you and I have chewed over a bit.  I am also going to throw in that I was speaking to the Local Authority in question regarding the fact that they were sending all these really unsuitable tenants our way, and it was peeing us off a bit, particularly when certain staff members conduct Land Registry checks and make contact with our landlords and offer their services FOC so poor ickle DSS tenant dont have to pay to use our services  - that is another story, but the upshot of this story as follows:

I had a long conversation with a fairly high up manager in the relevant department, expressing my disgust over the above action, which was actually tantamount to procurement and not something a local authority should be getting into.  She didnt agree but hey ho we then went on to tenant selection and had a long chat about this.  During this conversation the local authority told me categorically they must take every tenant's words on board and treat it accordingly, so if they lie to the Local Authority, they have to take it as gospel truth.  It was agreed that better communication between local authority and tenant was the way forward, but thats not my problem to deal with.

We then went on to tenant selection and I mentioned LRS.  This lady mentioned your name Paul and I suggested that maybe you two should talk, as this would stop a lot of the problems dead in their tracks.  She gave me the impression that they were a bit above that, plus they had a legal duty to re-house the homeless.  I got the feeling I was flogging a dead horse regarding this and decided to give her another hammering over the above story, which was actually quite satisfying as by this time I sensed her to be a bit fed up with me.  To be fair, we didnt get anywhere, apart from the fact I have withdrawn Heritage Estate Agents from their list of preferred letting agents to be used, and have told her to us stick it back on that list over my dead body.

As you know, we are always keen to spread the word, which I do with other letting agents and landlords regularly.  I am afraid though that it will take something fairly big to change this though, but am more than happy to lend my support in any way possible.

Cathy

http://www.heritage4homes.co.uk

PS  I am not normally that confrontational, but I had just had a very terse conversation with the landlord in question, who was furious with the local authority. 

Heartfelt sentiments from  Paul and am in total agreement with his take on the situation.

I reckon that brick wall Paul has been using to bang his head against must have collapsed by now!; so much used has it been!!!!

It just confirms all we have known.

Councils try to mug off PRS LL with their dross as otherwise they have to pay substantially more in TA than they would in HB.

It is obvious they are NOT the slightest bit interested in the wellbeing of the LL once they have managed to pass off the tenant to the LL.

There is one thing that would stop the councils behaving in this way.

You know what it is..........................................immediate eviction in cases of rent arrears.

Only this will frighten councils as all that would happen would be the return of those wrongun tenants once evicted to he council housing dept.

Supposedly the council has NO obligation to house anyone who has been evicted because of failure to pay rent.

And yet councils continue to attempt to house these wrongun evicted tenants and to fob them off to new mug LL.

These councils are scum and deserve to be ignored by PRS LL.

Which right thinking PRS LL would wish to assist these low life councils!?

They have to fob their wrongun tenants onto someone.

LL who accept this council dross and then find themselves stitched up by the wrongun tenant have only themselves to blame.

Any tenant suggested by a council is by default probably a wrongun.

Unfortunately for councils they are still labouring under the delusion that PRS LL need HB tenants.

This used to be the case and councils held the whip hand.

Well just in case councils don't realise; the market has substantially changed!!!

PRS LL don't NEED HB tenants anymore.

There are more than enough other suitable tenants who are not reliant on HB.

Councils do not do anything to assist themselves with their negative attitude towards PRS LL.

PRS LL should be part of the housing solution .

Councils must surely realise that they will not be serviced with a large council house supply.

ONLY the PRS will be able to; if it so wishes, to supply councils with appropriate rental accommodation.

As evidenced by the council attitudes; these clearly indicate that councils are still wedded to the political philosophy that PRS LL are a necessary evil; but that councils will do nothing to make life easier for them.

They clearly would prefer that there was sufficient amount of social housing to house all their wronguns.

They hate the idea that they have to pay money to PRS LL and will do everything they can to make sure they don't make any profits.

This is bizarre as councils are having to spend inordinate amounts of council tax money on very expensive TA.

If only councils worked with the LL rather than believing everything their wrongun tenants state then LL would be more predisposed toward the tenants that councils put forward.

PRS LL will only allow their properties to be used for HB tenants if councils changed their attitude.

One fundamental change which could encourage LL to take HB tenants is for the council to advise that for those tenants that refuse to pay their rent that they should vacate the rental property once they have received a S21 or S8.

It should be made known to tenants that if they vacate as a consequence of serving of a correct notice that they will NOT be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless.

Compliance  with legal notices should not be used by a council as an excuse to not assist a tenant who is required to vacate by the LL.

HB tenants substantially abuse the eviction system at great cost to PRS LL.

It is primarily this reason that causes PRS LL to withdraw from offering their properties to HB tenants.

Until councils address this issue they will find that available supply of PRS rental accommodation for HB tenants continually dwindles.

Ultimately councils will have far larger costs for addressing their housing issues; which are so unnecessary when if they only engaged with PRS LL in an appropriate way, they could save themselves fortunes.

Political dogma is still a major driver of council negative attitudes against PRS LL.

They need to put aside the political dogma and consider the financial realities.

The PRS can assist councils in reducing their housing costs.

Surely an efficiently run and effective AST is far more beneficial to all parties than TA.

If councils won't play ball properly PRS LL will not play the the game and continue to desert the HB market at great detriment to the council's housing finances and to their tenants.

Councils need to up their game and change their arrogant attitude towards PRS LL.

I know the areas you mean and the properties.

Certain parts of Southend really are the pits; populated with low- life HB tenants.

Hopefully the HB rates will reduce further so that the HB tenants can't afford these places anymore.

I wonder come April how many HB tenants will be able to remain as most of them will have been reliant on DHP which only lasts a year.

If I was a HB LL I would wish to know whether the tenant was relying on DHP to pay the full rent.

April the LL will suddenly find the rent payment made to them reduces by the amount of DHP previously paid.

Time to get those authority to discuss letter sorted out so the LL can ascertain how the tenant is affording the rent.

I say get rid of them all to Shoeburyness.

I have spoken to quite a few Southend LA and NONE of them are accepting HB tenants anymore.

So you may get your wish as these tenants have to be in full time work as part of the LA criteria.

Hopefully this will mean the HB tenants are pushed out of Southend to grottier areas.

There are lots of professionals leaving London and moving down to the sea air of Southend.

A lot of them are the proverbial 'white flight'; finally giving up on East London.

Southend has had some good press lately as a commuter town.

Hopefully as it seems to be the case a better class of tenant is moving to there.

This will push out HB tenants away from Southend to be replaced with better tenants.

Now if they would only blow up the Kursal council development Southend would be a lot better off!!!!!!

That place is Benefits Street; writ LARGE!!