How This Tenancy Actually Began
This tenancy did not begin in the straightforward way people might assume.
I had paid a finder’s fee to Apex Dwellings to secure a private tenant. One was initially found, but just as matters were due to be finalised, the agent went on pilgrimage to Mecca, assuring me that a colleague would complete the process in his absence. That never happened. A month passed with no progress, and the original private tenant was lost.
When the agent eventually returned, he told me he had found an alternative tenant. This time, however, the tenant would be partly supported by Universal Credit, through a deal he secured with REdbridge Council. I initially rejected this outright, but was told that finding another tenant could take months and that leaving the property empty would be financially damaging. Under pressure, I reluctantly agreed.
At that point, the tenancy agreement itself was clear and unambiguous.
The rent was set at £1,700 per month, payable on the 4th day of each month.
On that basis, the tenancy went ahead.
It sounded straightforward.
For a while, I trusted that arrangement. I shouldn’t have.
What I did not know at the time was that the agent had retained an undisclosed £5,000 incentive from the local council, despite having already taken a finder’s fee from me. I was also assured that the rent would be protected by insurance, something I later discovered was entirely untrue.
When I raised these assurances directly with Redbridge Council, I was informed that the incentive payment had been retained by the agent and that, although the council had advised the agent to arrange rent protection insurance, he had failed to do so, leaving me unprotected. I subsequently lodged a formal complaint with the Property Redress Scheme, which—almost a year later—resulted in £3,400 in compensation in recognition of the agent’s misconduct (click here).
Missed Payments and Familiar Excuses
Almost immediately, rent payments became irregular. Sometimes late. Sometimes missing altogether.
Each time I chased the arrears, I was told the same thing:
Universal Credit delays. Outstanding checks. Third-party paperwork. Nothing I could do until they paid.
I gave the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who has dealt with the benefits system knows delays happen.
But the arrears kept growing.
Sometime later, I was informed by Apex Dwellings that most of the rent would be covered by Universal Credit, which would be paid to the tenant and then passed on to me. Universal Credit was expected to contribute £1,250 per month, with the tenant responsible for topping this up with £450 of her own money.
The estate agent also sent me a Household Income summary prepared by Redbridge Council for the tenant, which showed the following benefits:
Average Monthly Income
Income Source Amount (£) Status Universal Credit 1,403.27 Claimed Child Benefit 110.93 Claimed Total Benefits 1,514.20 Claimed Net Earnings 1,364.18 Received Total Income 2,878.38
The council even provided a monthly budget breakdown for her regular spending:
Monthly Budget
| Category | £ |
|---|
| Take-home income | 2,878.38 |
| Rent | 1,850.00 |
| Home & contents insurance | 1,951.59 |
| Council Tax | 101.59 |
| Utilities (Gas, Elec, Water) | 238.94 |
| Transport | 34.00 |
| Communication & leisure | 24.99 |
| Mobile phone | 24.99 |
| Food & housekeeping | 173.56 |
| Total costs | 2,322.61 |
| After costs | 555.77 |
Given these numbers, there should not have been any problem paying the rent. The tenant clearly had sufficient income to cover her obligations, making the later arrears and delays all the more frustrating and inexplicable.
In September, with rent arrears mounting, I began speaking directly with Redbridge Council about the tenant. Initially, they had refused to engage, as their relationship was solely with Apex Dwellings, the estate agent. However, the decision from the Property Redress Scheme opened the door for me to communicate with the council directly. Even then, their correspondence was always very limited, offering little clarity or support.
In October 2025, an officer from Redbridge Council emailed me to say that two council officers were actively assisting the tenant and that it was hoped this support would resolve the growing rent arrears. During numerous phone calls around this time, I was repeatedly told that council officers were working with the tenant and would help address what were described as delays with Universal Credit. These reassurances directly influenced my decision not to begin eviction proceedings earlier, as I was led to believe the arrears were about to be resolved.
In November 2025, despite the ongoing arrears, we agreed to increase the rent to £1,800 per month, raising the tenant’s personal contribution to £550. This decision was not taken lightly. At the time, the tenant was repeatedly assuring me that Universal Credit was about to release a lump-sum payment of around £5,000, which would clear the outstanding arrears.
I was given dates.
First 15 November 2025, following what I was told was a phone call confirming payment was imminent.
When that date passed, I was told to wait until the 20th.
When nothing arrived, the story shifted again — this time to the 31st, supposedly her normal payment date.
None of those payments ever arrived.
What made these claims seem credible at the time was a strange and unexpected call I received in October from a Redbridge Council officer, who told me that a payment of £3,200 would be made to me from a Discretionary Housing Fund. That payment was never received, and despite repeated attempts to follow up, I never heard from him again.
Separately, another council officer advised me on several occasions in November that the tenant’s Universal Credit housing element had been delayed but would be paid shortly. What was particularly concerning was that the dates mentioned repeatedly mirrored the same 31st-of-the-month deadline the tenant herself was giving me. At the time, it appeared that both the council and I were being told — and repeating — the same story.
It was only when no payment was made by 30 November that Redbridge Council finally informed me that I could apply for rent to be paid directly from Universal Credit. By that point, the tenant was already four months in arrears, even though this arrangement could have been put in place after just two months.
When I attempted to apply through the government website, I was unable to proceed because I did not have the tenant’s date of birth, and Redbridge Council did not respond to a request for it. I then contacted the Property Redress Scheme, explaining that I had requested the identification documents that the estate agent was required to check at the start of the tenancy as part of my earlier complaint. They responded to say they did not hold the information themselves and advised me to request it directly from the agent, and to open a further complaint if he failed to comply.
I forwarded that correspondence to Apex Dwellings, and only then did the agent finally provide a copy of the tenant’s EU pre-Settlement Visa as proof of ID, confirming her date of birth. This allowed me, at last, to complete the application for rent to be paid directly.
However, the first payment still did not arrive on 30 December, the date the tenant had repeatedly told me was her normal payment day. This continued delay made it clear that, despite finally setting up direct payments, the arrears situation was far from resolved.
The Truth Comes Out
Eventually, exhausted by the repeated delays and contradictions, I contacted Universal Credit directly by telephone — despite having previously been told by Redbridge Council that I would not be able to speak to them myself. This call changed everything. Using the tenant’s date of birth, the property address, and her name, I was finally able to navigate the automated systems and take control of the situation.
I hope this information is useful to other landlords reading this post — sometimes, persistence and having the right information can make all the difference.
What I learned from Universal Credit over three separate calls was shocking. There had been no delays in payments. The tenant had been receiving the housing element from the very start of the tenancy, and the money had been paid to her every month.
The reason I did not receive payment in December, I was told, was that the tenant had not provided certain required information — specifically, details about her childcare costs. As a result, Universal Credit could only pay £40 per month toward the £6,900 arrears, since the tenant could not afford to pay more. At that rate, it would take nearly 15 years to recover the debt — a stark illustration of how mismanagement and withheld information can create an almost impossible situation for landlords. To make matters worse, a Universal Credit officer informed me that these arrears payments would stop once the tenant was evicted, meaning the longer the process dragged on, the more I risked losing the chance to recover what was owed.
It became clear that the arrears were not due to government delays, as I had repeatedly been told, but because the tenant had been withholding funds she had received all along.
It wasn’t a systems failure. It was a breach of trust.
Formal Action Begins
With that confirmation, I had no realistic option left. In January 2026, I served a Section 21 notice to regain possession of the property. The situation was further complicated by the tenant’s status as an international student on a European settlement visa, receiving Universal Credit while caring for a newborn child born in the UK. I made it clear that if the arrears were not settled, I would pursue a County Court Judgment, which could affect her access to benefits. Despite the personal circumstances, the ongoing delays and unpaid rent left me no choice but to take formal action to protect my property and finances.
Only then did the tone change.
The tenant eventually contacted me, proposing a payment plan to clear the arrears. Around the same time, arrangements were finally made for Universal Credit to pay the rent directly to me, rather than via the tenant. Universal Credit also began to deduct an additional £40 per month from the tenants benefits to go toward the arrears.
During a subsequent phone call, a Universal Credit officer confirmed that I could apply for a third-party deduction to continue collecting that £40 even after the tenant was evicted. However, he could not explain the process and suggested I email the Basildon office, which had recently begun communicating with me by email. Despite this, the office has never responded to my question.
Helpful—but very late.
The Damage Done
By this point, the numbers told their own story:
-
Rent arrears: £6,900
-
Interest on late rent (as allowed under the tenancy and the Tenant Fees Act): £258.90
-
Legal fees incurred: £1,440
-
Damage costs: £150
That last figure relates to a separate incident where the tenant failed to turn off a bathroom tap, causing flooding—not only in my property, but in the shop below. Despite agreeing to cover the cost, they never paid.
The total outstanding balance now stands at £8,748.90.
Where Things Stand Now
I did not inform the tenant that Universal Credit had confirmed she had been receiving all her housing element payments from the start of the tenancy. I simply asked her how much she thought she owed toward the outstanding arrears. She estimated around £2,000 and agreed to pay an additional £500 per month on top of her regular contribution of £450, which should have been paid directly from the outset.
This made it clear that she had surplus funds, especially as she had told me she was working additional jobs to make ends meet. My wife had also regularly seen her carrying large shopping bags, and I had long suspected that the £3,200 discretionary fund from Redbridge Council had been pocketed.
Finally, Universal Credit paid £1,250 directly into my account on 15 January, once the tenant submitted her childcare costs — apparently unaware of what I already knew. In addition, £40 per month was deducted to go toward the arrears.
In an email to my solicitors, the tenant has confirmed that she intends to vacate the property by the deadline stated in the Section 21 notice, which is 16 March 2026. She is also seeking advice on a payment plan to settle the remaining arrears and has expressed a desire to resolve the matter. I will continue to receive direct payments from Universal Credit until that date, and the tenant is expected to continue paying her regular rental amounts in the meantime.
Given the scale of the arrears, my solicitors had proposed that any initial payment should be no less than £2,200, in addition to the regular rent and a meaningful overpayment, rather than the mere £40 previously offered. The tenant has not yet agreed to this amount but is scheduled to speak with my solicitors, during which she will outline how much she believes she can pay. I have made it clear that if her offer is insufficient, I will pursue a County Court Judgment (CCJ) to recover the debt.
Let there be no confusion: this sudden willingness to engage only emerged after it was made clear that continued non-payment could result in formal legal action, including a County Court Judgment, and that such action could have wider consequences for her immigration and settlement status. Until that point, despite repeated assurances and third-party interventions, no meaningful progress had been made toward repaying what was owed.
In addition to the action taken against the tenant, my solicitors are also reviewing a potential claim against the estate agents, Apex Dwellings, who initiated the tenancy. This includes examining the original assurances given to me that the rent would be insured for up to three months, an assurance that later proved to be untrue, as well as the failure to provide any tenant references and failing to inform me the tenant was an international student, despite both verbal assurances and statutory requirements. These matters are now being actively considered as part of further legal action.
This situation didn’t arise overnight. It built slowly—through missed payments, repeated assurances, and a reliance on explanations that turned out not to be true.
It’s a reminder that even when you try to act reasonably, patiently, and in good faith, there comes a point where facts matter more than excuses.
And sometimes, the paperwork tells a very different story from the one you’ve been hearing all along.
Comment from Wilson Chowdhry, Landlord:
“I am deeply concerned about how the UK is increasingly being viewed as an easy target for benefits fraud, particularly by individuals from abroad who seek to take advantage of our government’s generosity and the hard work of struggling taxpayers. To address this, I have started a UK Government petition calling for automatic visa revocation in cases of proven or reasonably suspected benefits fraud, even without a criminal conviction. I hope people will sign it to support stronger measures to protect public funds and maintain trust in our immigration and benefits systems.”
You can view and sign the petition here: Automatic Visa Revocation Triggered by Any Evidence of Benefits Fraud
No comments:
Post a Comment