85-year-old refuses to pay support charges after resident warden removed
Warden row pensioner is facing eviction
A council has threatened a pensioner with court action for refusing to pay for support services following the removal of the resident warden at his sheltered housing scheme.
Wiltshire Council told 85-year-old John Tippins that it could take him to court and that he could lose his home for his refusal to pay the support charges.
Mr Tippins stopped paying £11.72 of his rent, which covers the floating support officers who visit his scheme, from May 2009.
Salisbury Council, which was landlord of the properties at the time, replaced the resident warden with floating support in September 2005.
Wiltshire Council became landlord following the merger of the district councils into the new unitary authority on 1 April 2009.
Mr Tippins said: ‘When I signed up to come here, the package included the services of a resident warden, who had 20 years’ nursing experience including mental health, and this is the reason I accepted the offer.’
He said his 84-year-old wife, who has dementia and uses a wheelchair, had got to know the former warden but she did not want the replacement rota of three different floating support officers.
He said residents had not been properly consulted on the switch from resident wardens to floating support, which took place about two years after he and his wife moved into their home. However, the council said it had consulted residents.
The council said Mr Tippins’ tenancy agreement obliged him to pay the charge and that the pull cord alarm system in the property was also funded by the fee.
It said it currently had ‘no plans’ to evict him.
In a statement, the council added: ‘We sincerely hope we can reach an agreement with Mr Tippins without having to resort to court action but ultimately this may have to be considered if he fails to comply with his contractual obligations.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (18)
Joe Halewood | 19/03/2010 10:21 am
On what grounds is eviction being taken here?
I am unaware of any grounds for eviction that the non-payment of support charges constitutes a ground for eviction. It may constitute a legal action for recovery of alleged moneys due, but that is not an eviction ground, it is a money recovery action perhaps but not eviction.
The council dont state in the above that they are seeking eviction, rather they are simply stating court action under a contract.
They do significantly state the tenancy contract obligates him to pay the support charge. Whether it does or not 'obligate' the tenant or not to pay I fail to see which eviction ground can be used.
Any experts out there thagt can add to this point?
I am also minded of the Garbet case from December. The court ruled then that the tenancy contract wording meant that the landlord - a RSL - was obligated to provide a resident warden. If that is the case here and we have a de facto public authority as landlord then even if the consultaion was proper and not a 'nonsultation' it would appear that the tenancy contract has not changed its wording and/or the tenant has not signed a deed of variation then it would appear the tenant is entitled to a resident warden, and hence it could be the landlord that is failing in its contractual obligations.
This is very very interesting and if anyone has any specific details can they let me know in the usual way.
In the meantime, let me know where the facebook and other campaigns are as this one will run and run.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 19/03/2010 12:24 pm
Joe Halewood: 'I am unaware of any grounds for eviction'
He could be taken to court and evicted for rent arrears.
As far as I am aware the stance to refuse to pay a specific portion of the rent will not stand up in court.
Much like some people refusing to pay a proportion of their council tax because they have a gripe against the council/police or fire brigade. They still go to court and are often jailed.
I'm not sure the council would want the adverse publicity though...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 19/03/2010 1:01 pm
So Melvin, support charges is part of rent then????
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
the purple avenger | 19/03/2010 1:19 pm
Councils have proscecuted and had pensioners imprisoned for failing to pay council tax. That may have caused some outrage but it should be stated that if people refuse to pay it means that everyone else who is paying is subsidising them - which cant be correct. It is also dangerous to let people be above the law or treated differently because of their age (how would it be if a 50 year old did this, or a 25 year old?). Under age discrimination it should make no difference - we cant let people apply this when it suits and not when it doesn't (although to be fair the chap himself is not the culprit here - just the press, readers and courts need to bear this mind).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 19/03/2010 1:36 pm
the purple avenger | Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:19 GMT
and of course when chief executives and directors and managers are found guilty of harassment fraud and all the rest (for issues and mounts massive) they are not prosecuted by their organisations, but given holidays, pay off, pensions, etc...
How come is it only tenants being prosecuted?... How come you do not put forward your same arguments in these case?... Are you covering your back and your colleagues back perhaps?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 19/03/2010 2:12 pm
As ever, I'd imagine the devil is in the detail. When I managed a sheltered scheme with a warden there was a specific clause in the tenancy agreement that obligated you to take and pay for the services of the warden in addition to the basic rent, therefore any failure to pay any part of the rent could potentially lead to repossession, although equally you almost had to go to board level, policy wise, if you were to pursue eviction grounds against a sheltered tenant.
The tenant here seems to be pursuing a matter of principle, and good luck to him, but i think there is little or no chance of them reverting to the original model of care and as such the association can either choose not to pursue him and potentially see all other residents follow suit, or follow due process, which I feel is more likely.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 19/03/2010 2:47 pm
Harry - I have two points.
Firstly, all tenants had a 'sunset' clause put into their tenancies by way of a deed of variation in order for the landlord to claim THB. This sunset clause in almost all cases know expired on March 31st 2003. If so the tenancy contractual link to support being delivered ends.
Secondly, if not, then is the provision of support - and bear in mind no tenant has a right to any support under SP - a part of rent? In the run up to SP there was much legal opnion floating around that support services could not be part of the legal 'rent' - rent being a specific legal term whether net rent or gross rent. Im not aware of any court case that has established whether a support charge is part of rent, though I doubt it could be classed as being part of rent.
And frankly for £11.72 per week I doubt that can pay for any support at all as it only covers about 30 minutes time (national average cost per hour of FS was £23.02 in 2005) and that time includes travelling to and from as well!!
However, to get away from those apparent legal technicalities, we have a tenant claiming 5 years after the fact, that the council did not consult in replacing the resident warden with a floating support service. Surely that is an easy thing for the council to prove that they consulted - and of course paid due regard to their DDA duties - and undertook and published a for Equality Impact Assessment.
Does this evidence exist on the councils website? If not is there evidence of them through a simple google serach? If the answer to the latter is no ... well a case may exist.
I do agree that this is unlikely to result in a resident warden being put back in place, but as with Garbet that will likely depend on what the landlords tenancy obligation is and how this is expressed within the tenancy itself.
So it maybe one tenant simply seeing what recent court cases have produced and being aggrieved at losing resident warden 5 years ago, or it may be a genuine issue that the council did not undertake or pay 'due regard' to consultation.
Either way the matter is one that requires much more detail - and yet again I restate the council has not said they will evict in the quotes about, so yet again we see sensationalism in the IH reporting of this matter. No doubt this is to encourage the more sensationalist and knee-jerk responses already evident above, that all assume the tenant has been threatened with eviction, and not any semblance of a discussion of the real issues
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 19/03/2010 3:01 pm
Joe Halewood | Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:01 GMT
'So Melvin, support charges is part of rent then????'
No. It is part of the cost of living in that property. Let me rephrase:
As far as I am aware the stance to refuse to pay a specific portion of the housing costs will not stand up in court.
If you order fish and chips, only pay for the chips and run out of the shop when they catch you they'll prosecute you for theft of both...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 19/03/2010 3:13 pm
"Melvin Bone | Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:01 GMT
If you order fish and chips, only pay for the chips and run out of the shop when they catch you they'll prosecute you for theft of both... "
Not if you paid for fish and chips and you have been only given chips and no fish.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 19/03/2010 3:21 pm
I'm rather shallower in the tooth Joe, I came into sheltered around the time of the inception of SP and abolition of THB, so I'm referring to that. Interestingly though, the support charge of about £11/12 a week was about the same - resident warden costs were easily covered by 70 residents paying that much a property - strange how floating support is much "cheaper" given the reasons you've mentioned - travelling time etc. Clearly far cleverer people than the likes of us can explain the vast savings to be made....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment