Housing Benefit

10/03/2010 7:13 pm

Why dont these posts state facts of the apparent or alleged situations, rather than pander to the usual suspects on here?

What services are we talking about exactly?

The absence of any real information makes such posts inept and leads to the comments above - "Its a huge con etc" - making landlords or whoever guilty until proven inocent and guilty by rumour and speculation. Either state what alleged facts one is concerned about or else people will suspect that the real motive behind such posts is simply self serving

10/03/2010 8:15 pm

So, Kass, can you tell me what services are being charged for here and not being delivered?

If not then crawl back under your rock

11/03/2010 8:40 am

NO, the poster does not make clear at all what that alleged issue is, that is the point. Rather she simply states that tenants are being charged for a service they dont receive, she does NOT say what they alleged non-receivable service is.

On a linked point or principle is it the case that tenants that have received HB to pay rent but dont pay it are guilty of benefit fraud?

However to return to the point, the original post is speculative and suggestive, doesnt contain any detail of the alleged non-service, or how much tenanst are being charged and uses highly emotive terms such as theft. To which I would caution her to be very careful and also state that if its theft which is clearly a criminal offence she should report it to police. You dont need an expert to advise that, so why hasnt she becomes the question?

12/03/2010 11:30 am

I was after some legal assistance here.
I wanted clear guidelines not a fight over what i may or may not mean or what i have or have not said.
I thought that I had posted to ask the experts... clearly not.
The fact of the matter is that tenants are beig charged for services that they are not receiving.
If I go to a shop and they ask me for over £1000 and I get nothing for this £1000 then I do not have to pay- right?
Seems simple but how simple is it when LA's and powerfull landlords are involved?
Please note that i am not asking for your opinion but expert advice as it says on the label.
Many thanks.

12/03/2010 12:38 pm

I dont see how you can expct legal advice on a matter so vague. That is also the point I was making. The variables in the lack of information making such a task impossible.

It could part of a variable service charge that is reviewed at the end of each year and then reduced and so not as clear cut as it first appears.

It could be the millions of general needs tenants that are still paying a subsidy or hidden premium to pay for a resident warden before such charges were allegedly unpooled but in actuality havent.

It could be charges for a communal charge that havent changed to reflect its reduction in service or many similar issues.

All I was saying is that without stating what the issues are then (a) it may not be absolute fact that tenants are being charged for a service they dont receive, and (b) that any legal or other advice can only be very very generic and not expert advice based on what you have revealed.

HB charges for HB eligible and ineligible charges - that it appears you are looking at - always include an element of estimation and also contain an element of subjectivity and assumption. It is also the case that how such estimated costs are arrived at differs from one organisation to the next. Further that all HB depts interpret them with the same subjectivity.

Finally, it may also be the case that a full investigation may reveal that some tenants are receiving services and have not been charged fully for them too. So have you thought that if you are correct on overcharging for Service A, that it could be that Service B, C, D and E may also have to increase if charges are absolutely transparent and the tenant could end up either pay more in total and or losing some other services? I say this as I have seen this happen.

It can also be the case that HB ineligible charges can become eligible and an increase in HB achieved with a reduction for the tenant charge. This is due to the huge complexities in the HB reulations and the lack of knowledge of them by both landlords and HB officers.

In summary, without specific detail, you can never get the apparently simple answer you are seeking

16/03/2010 10:38 am

I agree with Jack, how can you ask for advice, but not state what service is not being delivered. You wouldn't go to a lawyer and say: i have a problem..." and then expect him to guess what it is.

He isn't asking for much, simply tell him what service is not being deliveered and someone may be able to offer you advice.

"the facts" haven't been stated, the facts would be specific. It is impossible to give advice on such a broad area as "services" and to provide negative feedback when he is obviously trying to offer assistance is naive and rather ungreatful.

17/03/2010 12:45 pm

Oh dear. Another example of a sector-promoting magazine doing the complete opposite by not editing rants and posts.

Well, surely a 'simple' 'outline' answer would be - the contractual relationship is between the landlord and tenant, so therefore the tenant has the right to challenge the landlord over non-provision of the services set out in the contract.

It is inconsequential to the landlord that the tenant has their rent paid by HB, as the charge would be levied whatever means the tenant has. However, landlords have to pass a fit and proper person test, and while larger social landlords rarely undergo this test, repeated reporting of landlords failing to deliver services charge for, may, and I emphasise may, prompt a local authority to investigate. Failure of the local authority to respond could then be reported to the Benefit Fraud Inspector or Local Government Ombudsman.

If a tenant, paying or in receipt of HB, successfully challenges their landlord and is awarded a refund, then this can in theory be paid back to the local authority who originally paid the allowance.

You could always indicate you would complaint to a Valuation Tribunal if you felt your service charges were unreasonable. You may also give 28 days' notice of witholding rent (or part thereof) if your landlord is in breach of its contractual obligations - you do, however, have to demonstrate that you have kept the money aside to pay if your claim is ultimately unsuccessful.

There, it is possible to give an outline reply which might help this lady head in one of a number of directions.

Will this forum ever become less combative and less embarrassing?

17/03/2010 1:16 pm

TC's stock answer also assumes the alleged service is documentd in the tenancy contract and many are not and some are appended to the tenancy contract without the main body of that contract referencing the appendices and schedules - I have seen many of them

Perhaps TC would also like to comment on whether it is the public or private law of contrac that would apply to the alleged non service as this would impact on what remedies are available. And surely if it just a contractual issue then why go to Ombudsman or other non-legal route, why not simply go straight to the legal one?

If you have a complaint with any other cointracted party would you complain to the (often inadequate) regulator or the company itself, or simply take legal action.

Well of course that would depend on the detail - detail that is not here and so without any detail then it is not possible to give any form of 'expert' advice at all. Any so-called 'expert' would not give such advice even advice riven with caveats as that would be unprofessional and too unwieldy.

Moreover, 'facts' are what the courts would determine and not the accusers opinion as on here as that is all it is until it is proven, opinion.

Finally, many contracts contain clauses and scope for one party to withdraw services it accounts are in arrears - ive yet to see a tenancy contract written as such, but some HAs offer a tiered service (gold, silver and bronze) dependent on arrears and behaviours of tenants. That, for all we know, may well be the case here.

The absence of detail, the deliberate and knowingly withheld detail in point of fact, and the dogmatism of the person seeking advice doing just that and claiming it to be fact, gives little credence to any argument that is it fact; rather it simply raises concerns over why they are deliberately withholding such detail. Surely the detail cannot be unique to any one landlord and so does not identify or forewarn the apparently errant or even fraudulent landlord?

17/03/2010 3:14 pm

Kev Dupree Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:01 GMT

gollygosh has asked for a certain type of 'general' advice. On the 'general' facts she stated and no more no less. This was not good enough for some like you. However someone else much more helpful like TC gave it to her.
She expressed satisfaction with it. But unless she reveals to you details she clearly, for whatever reason, does not wish to reveal for you she is being "very strange."
Well, go on like this, maybe a bit more harassment from you and she will cave in and reveal it all against her will.

17/03/2010 4:17 pm

"Kev Dupree
Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:43 GMT...

If she stated simply: communal cleaning for example the people on this site could offer her a range of advice which actually bears relevance to the issue she has."

Well, this is exactly what you are not getting. She asked for a general sort of advice. That's what she neeeded, no more no less.
Now she seems to be happy with the one she received from TC...

That gollygosh should be "very strange" to you because of this, well, it makes you very very strange indeed.