A Southampton landlord is crying foul after a tenant he said was approved by the Department of Financial Assistance abandoned the dwelling without warning.“My message to others is: landlords beware — this could happen to you,” said disgusted property owner Barclay Carmichael, who found the place empty, its yard and interior strewn with debris.The Riviera Crescent apartment of nearly 30 years was left “wrecked” by a single-mother tenant whom he took on in good faith.However, in response, Families Minister Glenn Blakeney said Mr Carmichael had misunderstood the agreement.In a statement to The Royal Gazette, Mr Blakeney said: “DFA does not take responsibility for their client’s inappropriate behaviour, when they as tenants interact with landlords/agents.“If there is a problem of not paying rent or if they destroy property or not keep it clean, etc, this matter is between the tenant and the landlord/agent.”The Minister further stated that the rent verification form provided to Mr Carmichael showed in writing that rent was not guaranteed and that, as a result of the dispute, a letter would be attached to the form “further encouraging the relationship between tenant and landlord and clearly noting that DFA is not part of a rental agreement”.However, last night an unmoved Mr Carmichael retorted: “Glenn Blakeney needs to call me, and we will sort this out as men. I gave this single mother a chance.”Mr Carmichael said he’s rented to single mothers before and has never encountered a problem resident.It was a chance encounter on May 24 that led to the shock discovery that his boarder was gone.He complained to Financial Assistance, where an employee told him the department is “not in the real estate business”, and is no longer in contact with her.Surveying the trash-strewn interior of the home, Mr Carmichael told The Royal Gazette he wondered if the Financial Assistance had simply been used as “bait” to secure accommodation for the woman.He said that 18 months ago, after a church group recommended the woman, he agreed to an interview, finding her to be “stable, focused and polite”.His realtor vetted the woman, he said.“The agent and I were in agreement that we should give her an opportunity, and that was because she had been preapproved for financial assistance, and had her form in hand.“That added value, because I had a point of contact to talk with if there was a problem. That was the sole reason why I accepted her.“It was a comfort zone for me. I could call up Financial Assistance and get it resolved. That did happen on a number of occasions.“Financial Assistance’s pre-approval said they would be responsible for paying her rent. The rental agreement was signed, a copy went to the department; I had mine and she had hers.“Once she moved in, there were a few challenges to overcome.“Top of the list was that on a monthly basis she was required to furnish information with her monthly expenses to government, before her rent would be forwarded to my account.“There was another occasion when other tenants next door complained of noise and fighting.“Again, a call was made to her case manager, and I understood from that point it was sorted out. As far as I am concerned, everything was OK, and no news was good news.”However he was approached at the Bermuda Day Parade by an individual interested in his “vacant property”. His agent reported no notice from the tenant of quitting the lease and Mr Carmichael arrived to find the premises strewn with mattresses and clothes.The apartment, which Mr Carmichael once called home, was littered with trash, with cupboard doors broken and furniture overturned.“Thank heavens the appliances aren’t mine,” he said.On May 30, he contacted the department. A response the next day said the tenant was no longer a recipient of financial assistance.It reads: “We are not in contact with her. It is your decision what to do with her belongs [sic]. As she left them in your apartment. Had you not realised that the rent was not been [sic] paid?”Mr Blakeney last night insisted that Mr Carmichael’s RVF, like a lease, “is between our client, the tenant and the landlord or the agent for the landlord” — not Financial Assistance.He continued: “Our DFA client became Mr Carmichael’s tenant and moved into Mr Carmichael’s apartment March 2010. The quoted rent was for two bedrooms.”Mr Blakeney said the Department assisted by paying the woman’s security deposit, plus the stamp duty levy, to allow her to move in with her four children.“This money was to be returned via a reduction in food cost over a period of time,” he said.However, the Minister said that it was later discovered Mr Carmichael was “over charging client, whereas the rent, according to Rent Commission, should not have been established at the amount charged to the client but rather, $500 less”.As a result, he said, the Department overpaid $5,141.90 — and the client was then entitled to reside at the premises rent-free for three months.“The tenant continued to reside at Mr Carmichael’s apartment until December 2011 — with DFA paying the appropriate portion of the rent, as the tenant continued to work, and therefore, was required to pay the difference.”The Minister said Government last paid rent to Mr Carmichael on December, 2011, adding: “At the time DFA was unaware of any plans of the tenant to move out from Mr Carmichael’s rental property and if that were the case, DFA would have encouraged their client to inform the landlord/agent accordingly.”He said the tenant had submitted a new RVF for a new apartment on December 12, 2011, telling her caseworker she had found better accommodation.“DFA is just now hearing from the landlord over five months later … DFA has not been paying on client’s behalf and obviously, the client has not been contributing.“Clearly the client did not leave as she should have, and left a mess. However, it is again, over five months ago now.“Under the unfortunate circumstances, Mr Carmichael may wish to consider using the security deposit to best effect necessary cleaning and/or repairs to his affected rental unit and as landlord, if he finds that he needs an additional amount cover such costs to get his rental unit in good order; he should proceed to try and get any extra money required from his former tenant directly via the courts — similar to what he would be expected to do with any other tenant, whether a DFA client or not.”Mr Blakeney has categorically denied any culpability for the DFA, while the landlord remains adamant that he ought to have been informed that the tenant was moving out.Furious at being left to bear the cost for cleaning up his apartment, Mr Carmichael said: “Because of this, private sector and Government partnerships are going to take a dive.”Added the landlord: “People put their homes out to Government. They are paying for it. Why don’t they follow up?”