Rent late

Stheno

bajer101 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you as such, but the lease that was signed would be superceeded by the LL signing the HAP agreement. The eviction notice is valid as the LL hasn't received the payment as yet, but once the payment is received the new HAP contract kicks in and the eviction notice should be rescinded. No?

I've no idea the I looked on it as two separate contract the 'll has one with you and one with the council?

njs030

bajer101 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you as such, but the lease that was signed would be superceeded by the LL signing the HAP agreement. The eviction notice is valid as the LL hasn't received the payment as yet, but once the payment is received the new HAP contract kicks in and the eviction notice should be rescinded. No?

An eviction notice isn't dependent on rent being paid though its possible they will cancel it.. But what's your plan for when your rent is due again on the 1st October and they issue a non payment letter the following day?

bajer101

Stheno wrote: »

I've no idea the I looked on it as two separate contract the 'll has one with you and one with the council?

The council definitely try to emphasise that they are not involved in the contract between the tenant and the LL - they read off a script about that. But regardless of that, the LL has signed an agreement stating that the rent will be paid at the end of the month. Game over.

Stheno

bajer101 wrote: »

The council definitely try to emphasise that they are not involved in the contract between the tenant and the LL - they read off a script about that. But regardless of that, the LL has signed an agreement stating that the rent will be paid at the end of the month. Game over.

I don't read it like that.

I see it that you signed an agreement to pay in advance and the 'll signed up for HAP from the council being paid at the end of the month.

That leaves an initial shortfall in your ability to pay your rent as per your lease which has now led to arrears ergo the eviction order.

If I've read your posts correctly you appear to feel that the landlord should wait until the end of each month for the gap rather than you getting your rent as per your lease back on track and then using HAP to pay the rent on time?

circular flexing

Stheno wrote: »

I don't read it like that.

I see it that you signed an agreement to pay in advance and the 'll signed up for HAP from the council being paid at the end of the month.

That leaves an initial shortfall in your ability to pay your rent as per your lease which has now led to arrears ergo the eviction order.

If I've read your posts correctly you appear to feel that the landlord should wait until the end of each month for the gap rather than you getting your rent as per your lease back on track and then using HAP to pay the rent on time?

The HAP guidelines are quite clear - rent is paid on the last Wednesday of the month for that calendar month. If the LL wanted the OP to bridge the gap for September, the LL should have been clearer about that IMO.

bajer101

Stheno wrote: »

I don't read it like that.

I see it that you signed an agreement to pay in advance and the 'll signed up for HAP from the council being paid at the end of the month.

That leaves an initial shortfall in your ability to pay your rent as per your lease which has now led to arrears ergo the eviction order.

If I've read your posts correctly you appear to feel that the landlord should wait until the end of each month for the gap rather than you getting your rent as per your lease back on track and then using HAP to pay the rent on time?

I hear ya! It's a stupid situation whereby HAP is paid in arrears, as opposed to in advance as per the terms of all leases. I think we're all agreed on that (except for the clown who came up with such a scheme).

But my travails have moved on a bit since then and are focussed on the legalities of the LL signing the HAP agreement (which he had to). That signed HAP agreement supercedes previous lease agreements. You landlords should be up in arms about this.

njs030

circular flexing wrote: »

The HAP guidelines are quite clear - rent is paid on the last Wednesday of the month for that calendar month. If the LL wanted the OP to bridge the gap for September, the LL should have been clearer about that IMO.

The tenant was told on September 2nd that rent needed to be paid.
That's pretty clear imo.

circular flexing

notjustsweet wrote: »

The tenant was told on September 2nd that rent needed to be paid.
That's pretty clear imo.

But they also signed an agreement stating it would be paid on the last Wednesday of the month

Stheno

bajer101 wrote: »

I hear ya! It's a stupid situation whereby HAP is paid in arrears, as opposed to in advance as per the terms of all leases. I think we're all agreed on that (except for the clown who came up with such a scheme).

But my travails have moved on a bit since then and are focussed on the legalities of the LL signing the HAP agreement (which he had to). That signed HAP agreement supercedes previous lease agreements. You landlords should be up in arms about this.

I'm neither a landlord nor a tenant

What I'm failing to see here is how the hap agreement supersedes your lease? Who signed the hap agreement, the council and ll or were you also a signatory?

njs030

circular flexing wrote: »

But they also signed an agreement stating it would be paid on the last Wednesday of the month

As op keeps pointing out they had no choice as it's "discrimination" not to.

He signed an agreement to pay rent on the first of the month, that's the agreement that counts and should be adhered to. The landlord agreed to accept a hap payment not to change the dates, clearly rent was still expected on the first as per the original agreement.

It's a situation where the landlord can't win!

Some people pay the rent themselves up until hap kicks in and then it's repaid which is the fairest way to do it imo.

bajer101

Stheno wrote: »

I'm neither a landlord nor a tenant

What I'm failing to see here is how the hap agreement supersedes your lease? Who signed the hap agreement, the council and ll or were you also a signatory?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming that it would be the same as most legal agreements - the later signed one takes precedence.

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming that it would be the same as most legal agreements - the later signed one takes precedence.

They are separate agreements and both valid would be my assessment, just becuse the LL signed an agreement that hap is payable at the end of the month does not mean you can be in rent arrears with the LL in the mean time.

Also as stated and clearly explained by another poster (with an example from an RTB case) the termination notice is still valid even if rent is up to date never mind the situation where rent is still behind as it is now so unless you can make up the short fall of the rent between when you last paid rent and when hap is paid then you are are most likely going to be evicted

bajer101

notjustsweet wrote: »

As op keeps pointing out they had no choice as it's "discrimination" not to.

He signed an agreement to pay rent on the first of the month, that's the agreement that counts and should be adhered to. The landlord agreed to accept a hap payment not to change the dates, clearly rent was still expected on the first as per the original agreement.

It's a situation where the landlord can't win!

Some people pay the rent themselves up until hap kicks in and then it's repaid which is the fairest way to do it imo.

But the LL then signed a contract agreeing that the rent would be paid in arrears. That's it. I've had a bit of time to contemplate this and as it involved us being put out on the street I gave it a fair bit of thought.

The LL's eviction notice was valid, but will be rescinded once the September payment is made on Wednesday. There should be no more notices issued then as the HAP contract kicks in.

Stheno

bajer101 wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming that it would be the same as most legal agreements - the later signed one takes precedence.

A later agreement signed by the ll and council? Nothing to do with the lease between you and your landlord?

njs030

bajer101 wrote: »

But the LL then signed a contract agreeing that the rent would be paid in arrears. That's it. I've had a bit of time to contemplate this and as it involved us being put out on the street I gave it a fair bit of thought.

The LL's eviction notice was valid, but will be rescinded once the September payment is made on Wednesday. There should be no more notices issued then as the HAP contract kicks in.

Sure look, I hope your thoughts are correct.

bajer101

Cash Young Yachtsman wrote: »

They are seperatel agreements and both valid would be my assessment, just becuse the LL signed an agreement that hap is payable at the end of the month does not mean you can be in rent arrears with the LL in the mean time.

Also as stated and clearly explained by another poster (with an example from an RTB case) the termination notice is still valid even if rent is up to date never mind the situation where rent is still behind as it is now so unless you can make up the short fall of the rent between when you last paid rent and when hap is paid then you are are most likely going to be evicted

The landlord signed an agreement after the lease which renders the relevant clauses in the lease invalid. This is easy to understand. If I create a will leaving everything to John, but then change my mind and write a new will leaving it all to Jim - it is the will that leaves it all to Jim that is valid.

The LL's last written contract supercedes all previous agreements. That simple.

Stheno

bajer101 wrote: »

The landlord signed an agreement after the lease which renders the relevant clauses in the lease invalid. This is easy to understand. If I create a will leaving everything to John, but then change my mind and write a new will leaving it all to Jim - it is the will that leaves it all to Jim that is valid.

The LL's last written contract supercedes all previous agreements. That simple.

Last written contract with you is the lease which hasn't changed?

bajer101

Stheno wrote: »

Last written contract with you is the lease which hasn't changed?

This will be the point that will be thrashed out. The people in HAP and a solicitor friend reckon it is obvious. The later signature counters the previous one.

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

The landlord signed an agreement after the lease which renders the relevant clauses in the lease invalid. This is easy to understand. If I create a will leaving everything to John, but then change my mind and write a new will leaving it all to Jim - it is the will that leaves it all to Jim that is valid.

The LL's last written contract supercedes all previous agreements. That simple.

I would disagree and think your interpretation of the situation is wrong.

Do you really think you are going to get away without paying the arrears? You are still on the hook for this and your agreement with LL is not superseded by the hap agreement with the council. They are separate agreements and both valid, your will analogy is not comparable with this situation.

Also as I pointed out the only person who can stop the eviction now is the LL do you really think he will withdraw the notice of termination when you are still in rent arrears? You will get zero sympathy from anyone if you are trying to game the system and get away with not paying what you owe, if I were the LL and even got a sniff of this I'd want you out asap.

njs030

This is what a hap form asks for from a landlord, they don't agree to payment in arrears at all -

The total amount of the monthly rent.
Proof of your ownership/entitlement to act as landlord of the property, with your name and the property address.
Header from a bank statement, with your/your agent’s name and address to prove that the named person/company nominated to receive HAP payments is the account holder for the bank details provided.
An undertaking regarding the property’s compliance with standards for rental accommodation.
An undertaking regarding your tax compliance.
Your PPSN or Tax Reference Number

TheChizler

Cash Young Yachtsman wrote: »

They are separate agreements and both valid, your will analogy is not comparable with this situation.

They both can't be still valid in their entirety though can they? If they were then the landlord would be receiving one payment from the tenant at the start of the month and a second from HAP at the end of the month, being paid twice for the same month for the foreseeable future.

That's clearly not the case, therefore the part in the lease about the tenant paying the rent will no longer apply, why not the date?

bajer101

Well, the people in the HAP office who deal with this everyday say that they are correct, as does an independent solicitor who I consulted. So you'll excuse me if I take their advice rather than some internet randomer.

circular flexing

Cash Young Yachtsman wrote: »

Also as I pointed out the only person who can stop the eviction now is the LL do you really think he will withdraw the notice of termination when you are still in rent arrears? You will get zero sympathy from anyone if you are trying to game the system and get away with not paying what you owe, if I were the LL and even got a sniff of this I'd want you out asap.

He is not trying to game the system or get away with not paying what he owes though.

Mrs Shuttleworth

bajer101 wrote: »

Well, the people in the HAP office who deal with this everyday say that they are correct, as does an independent solicitor who I consulted. So you'll excuse me if I take their advice rather than some internet randomer.

Some of us on here were starting to have sympathy for you. Now you're losing your audience.

The HAP office should not have given you advice that the eviction notice should be rescinded. They exceeded their powers and are legally wrong.

You've been periodically in arrears since January when you first posted. The landlord cut you some slack and you caught up with the payments. Now you're in HAP and fallen behind again. The landlord should not be expected to indefinitely service/accommodate tenants who withhold payment over a lengthy period and then on the steps of the RTB/Court pay the outstanding amount and reset the cycle all over again. The landlord is entitled to and depends on certainty of cashflow.

The notion that the HAP agreement supersedes the lease is preposterous. The balance that you have to pay yourself each month and the shortfall from commencement of HAP is still due.

davindub

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

bajer101 wrote: »

Well, the people in the HAP office who deal with this everyday say that they are correct, as does an independent solicitor who I consulted. So you'll excuse me if I take their advice rather than some internet randomer.

Some of us on here were starting to have sympathy for you. Now you're losing your audience.

The HAP office should not have given you advice that the eviction notice should be rescinded. They exceeded their powers and are legally wrong.

You've been periodically in arrears since January when you first posted. The landlord cut you some slack and you caught up with the payments. Now you're in HAP and fallen behind again. The landlord should not be expected to indefinitely service/accommodate tenants who withhold payment over a lengthy period and then on the steps of the RTB/Court pay the outstanding amount and reset the cycle all over again. The landlord is entitled to and depends on certainty of cashflow.

The notion that the HAP agreement supersedes the lease is preposterous. The balance that you have to pay yourself each month and the shortfall from commencement of HAP is still due.

No the landlord is bound by the agreement. Payment on the last Wednesday of the month.

Grumpypants

To be honest the landlord agreed to, and signed the contract to say rent will be paid by HAP and in arrears at the end if the month, so they are well aware of when and who would be paying it.

To issue an eviction notice after that is really poor form. As with most of these situtation a tiny bit of cop on would have prevented the whole thing.

CruelCoin

bajer101 wrote: »

The council definitely try to emphasise that they are not involved in the contract between the tenant and the LL - they read off a script about that. But regardless of that, the LL has signed an agreement stating that the rent will be paid at the end of the month. Game over.

The landlord signing a document agreeing to accept payment from HAP is not the same as the landlord amending the original contract.

The agreement is between you and the LL. The HAP boys cannot sign an agreement on your behalf.

circular flexing

circular flexing wrote: »

He is not trying to game the system or get away with not paying what he owes though.

He is in rent arrears and is not paying what he owes. He owes rent for September and will still be in arrears for it after the hap is paid on Wednesday.

The op has to make up the shortfall between the start of September and the hap payment date on Wednesday otherwise he will remain in arrears and have no chance of not being evicted.

davindub wrote: »

No the landlord is bound by the agreement. Payment on the last Wednesday of the month.

As above the op is still in arrears though signing a hap agreement does it change that. The LL is most likely to proceed with eviction until the short fall between the ops last rent payment and hap being paid is made. And to be honest if I was the LL reading this id evict either way as the op is trying to get out of paying arrears.

Also what choice did the LL have, if he didn't sign the agreement he is in s1it for refusing hap if he did sign it he is caught with crazy payment in arrears conditions. What an insane system where a LL is forced into a situations he doesn't want, this nonsense of not being allowed to refuse hap needs to get changed asap.

davo10

davindub wrote: »

No the landlord is bound by the agreement. Payment on the last Wednesday of the month.

The Landord accepting payment from the council does not mean op gets a free pass on outstanding rent, nor does it excuse late payment of rent over a nine month period, why would you think it does?.

davindub

davo10 wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

No the landlord is bound by the agreement. Payment on the last Wednesday of the month.

The Landord accepting payment from the council does not mean op gets a free pass on outstanding rent, nor does it excuse late payment of rent over a nine month period, why would you think it does?.

There is no outstanding rent with the exception of September according to the OP. September is covered under the HAP agreement which is paid in arrears.

Persistently late with rent is not grounds for termination. Only being in arrears is.