Valerie Paynter, when criticising landlords (Letters, November 21), seems quite happy to advocate her friend being "only a month in arrears".

She forgets, if the property is on mortgage, the landlord has to start action to comply with the terms of any mortgage but, unlike both Ms Paynter and Justin Smith (Letters, November 22), landlords are complying with the terms of their agreements, not advocating, as in Mr Smith's case, the tenant's total disregard for any contract signed, expecting the landlord to pick up the pieces for what is nothing to do with their agreement.

Ms Paynter mentions the tenant had only just negotiated a five-year extension agreement, which seems quite unlikely if on an assured shorthold tenancy. While housing benefit may or may not have been paid, it could have taken some ten weeks before that was ascertained, so one month's rent could end up nearer four months' rent before the landlord received payment. By that time, the property could be repossessed - which would help no one.

The system needs updating and, hopefully, it will be because there also needs to be a sea change in public opinion, with society not accepting rights without responsibilities from all its members.

One hopes the words "No DSS" will be confined to rented accommodation's past. Social housing con-fined to estates, albeit well-meaning, will create the ghettos of tomorrow. I well remember the prejudice towards me because I come from Whitehawk - a job or credit application warranted instant refusal, based on nothing more than my address.

Yes, we need more affordable accommodation but we need to look at the way the landlord, whether social or private, seems to have to keep any part of the agreement, while tenants may forget any parts they don't like - not just to the cost of the landlord but to the cost of other decent tenants too.

With rights, we have responsibilities but the latter seem to have disappeared.

-John Stevens, Roman Crescent, Southwick