Was my question so very difficult no-one could answer?
05/10/2010 11:47 am
Last week I asked if anyone could advise whether it is the case that if an LA (secure) tenant is on a waiting list for another property and is nominated and accepted by a Housing Association (a new landlord in other words) that tenant cannot be given an introductory tenancy but must be given a full assured tenancy - and vice versa (if they move from an HA to an LA). If so what legislation/case law does this come under?
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
05/10/2010 12:02 pm
I asked around about that and I have been told that if you change landlord you will have to sign a new tenancy agreement and that's the start of your tenancy with them and therfore you will not be a secure tenant any more but an assured tenant.
It seems it is the same for block transfer. By voting to betransferred secure tenants lose their secure tenancy and get an assured tenancy.
Therefore if you are a secure tenant you should never vote for block transfer. If you are an assured tenant by voting for block transfer you cause your fellow secure tenants to lose their secure tenancy.
I am certainly curious to hear some expert confirm all this.
05/10/2010 1:04 pm
Thanks for this Kass, but I wasn't referring to block transfers (LSVT style) - this is in individual cases of a secure tenant moving from a local authority to a housing association - can they or can they not be issued with an introductory/starter tenancy. And vice versa for that matter.
05/10/2010 1:29 pm
I only know that if you change landlord you will lose your secure tenancy (both as a single tenant or block)... You will only keep your secure tenancy if you transfer to another property within the same landlord...
But give time to the expert to come and clarify!... sometimes one has to wait a bit for an answer here.
05/10/2010 1:48 pm
Here's something for you to ponder on and I'd like your opinion. I would point out that this is personal to me and not a hypothetical issue.
I lived in a ground floor flat which had been my home pre-transfer and subsequently had a secure tenancy.
I was decanted from that property (to one on the first floor of another block) on 22nd March whilst major works were carried out to all the groundfloor flats in each of the three blocks which make up the complex.
On 1st September I moved permanently from the decant property to a ground floor property but by my choice not to my original property.
I think I am correct but am willing to be corrected if not, that my new teancy is rightfully an assured tenancy and that I am now subject to Right to Acquire rather than Preserved Right to Buy.
Comments are invited.
05/10/2010 2:02 pm
if you have stayed all the time with the same landlord, you tenancy should be equivalent to the original one. So if you were a secure tenant when you started you should be a secure tenant now.
If you are not a secure tenant anymore you should ask your landlord for reasons why you are not, and proceed from there is you are not happy with their answer.
05/10/2010 2:07 pm
You raise an interesting point there Kass.
I was secure pre transfer, secure after transfer but as I, by choice, took a new tenanct on 1st September surely then I become an assured tenant or should I have become a secure tenant again despite it being a different property?
05/10/2010 2:22 pm
A QUICK UPDATE ...
I have fired a non-vexatious email off to my landlord and will report back in due course (generally takes 10 days).
05/10/2010 2:34 pm
As a secure tenant with your LA, if you are then nominated to, and accept a tenancy with, a HA you will be signing a full assured tenancy.
in return, from HA to LA, you would be expected to sign an introductory - at least with my LA this is the case, some LAs may differ on this and offer a secure immediately (though i will stress this is dependant on how you have approached, e.g. if you apprached the LA as homeless due to eviction from the Ha property you could be offered an insecure tenancy in temporary accomodation while you then join the list of the LA)
hope that helps.
05/10/2010 2:43 pm
Many thanks for this Bill. May I enquire why a tenant keeps security moving from an LA to an HA but not the other way round? I presume it is something to do with being a nomination, however if you had a common register and the HA tenant wanted to 'transfer' to the LA surely the same conditions should apply?
05/10/2010 2:48 pm
To the best of my knowledge, and as you correctly state, it is due to the nomination. rather than being a "new" tenant you are simply transferring from the LA to HA, however the legal duty to you must still be in place from the LA.
as for the other way around, I think - and dont quote me on this, if you were to transfer from LA to HA then back again you would be allowed the secure tenancy, if however you were a direct tenant of the HA there is then no legal duty to you from the LA except that you have been succesful on their bidding system, hence the introductory - these tend to transfer to secure tenancies after 12 months in any event as long as tenancy terms and conditions are upheld.
I havent heard of a "common" register before, not sure it would work as only the LA are bound by legal duties to house...
05/10/2010 2:48 pm
A person whom could help who is the best in the world and help us in the East End of London is a man CALLED
Independent Housing & Tenant Participation Consultant in London
and wrote a book called the 'Decanting Tenants Good Practice Guide he is the very best man you could every meet
17/10/2010 7:21 pm
AS PROMISED ... an update on my tenancy!! I have had a written response from my landlord telling me I was an assured tenant at transfer:-
Your tenancy at 29 XX became an assured tenancy upon the Large Scale Voluntary Transfer. Where a LSVT has occured from a local authority to a RSL then the secure status "simply flies off" (see Knowles Housing Association v Millar SLT 1326) at transfer and the tenancy becomes assured.
This is the case with tenants transferring from one Trust property to another, so your tenancy at 16 XX is also an assured tenancy.
Is this correct?
18/10/2010 9:29 am
Yes Rick, it probably is. On transfer existing secure tenants lose their secure status because RSLs can't award secure tenancies.
However, what normally happens is that the new tenancy becomes a hybrid containing your statutory rights as a secure tenant but supplemented by contractual rights which mirror the terms of your former secure tenancy. That is if an assured tenancy can't offer some of the rights enjoyed as a secure tenant then these 'rights' are added as contract between the tenant and the landlord. The only Right that isn't usually covered is a secure tenants Right to Manage.
18/10/2010 9:33 am
If you were a secure tenant you lost your secure tenancy on transfer... Did you and your fellow tenants know that would happen?... Did you accept the transfer on full knowledge of this?... If you did not know, then you were conned our of your secure tenancy rights. If that is the case you shoud now roll up your sleeves and start campaigning to get secure tenhancy rights back for yourself and your fellow tenants.
18/10/2010 9:39 am
what about secure tenants having their rent increased every 2 years while assured tenants have their rent increased every year?
Is that retained then?
18/10/2010 1:54 pm
Kass, the change of tenancy type must be in the offer document. If it's not then it can be challenged although there is next to no chance that this wouldn't have been spelt out quite clearly.
On your other point I'm not sure why you think secure tenancies don't attract rent increases every year? Every council I know increases their rents annually? The difference will the rate of rent increase. As the aim is to converge RSL and LA rents, stock transfer rents may increase quicker than if they had remained with the council. The rate of increase (above that of council rents) is limited to £2pw extra. Council rents will usually increase by inflation (RPI) + 0.5% whereas stock transfer rents will increase by inflation (RPI) + 0.5% + £2pw.
18/10/2010 2:56 pm
Of course LAs and HAs have tend to get themsleves covered when they do transfers - (as do your financial advisers)but do they explain these documents to their tenants in a clear and simple way? Or if tenants are agains them how can they inform of their opposition all other tenants if they have no access to them? Where do tenants get money to give these documents to laywers and barristers to havethem thouroughloy checked. When I asked London and Quadrant when they issued new tenancies I was told by London and Quadrant, you must not worry because the new tenancies have been checked by OUR lawyers...
Try to ask around how many tenants gone through transfers were fully aware they would lose their security tenancy rights and see how many will tell you they were fully informed of it or that they even knew about it.
Is this not a big con to deprive tenants of their rights and kill off secure tenancies- ?
18/10/2010 3:44 pm
A seond question, which would make to first more accurate would be to ask tenants with a secure agreement if they know what there rights are. I'm sure a large amount would not know. Secondly to this you should ask tenants if they care if they loose specific rights, again many wouldn't.
Out of interest kass which of the rights that you loose are you most concerned about?
Assured tenancies are still a very good legal agreement for tenants, massivley more attractive than tenancies in the private sector.
18/10/2010 4:13 pm
"A seond question, which would make to first more accurate would be to ask tenants with a secure agreement if they know what there rights are. I'm sure a large amount would not know. Secondly to this you should ask tenants if they care if they loose specific rights, again many wouldn't.
Well, thanks for supporting part of view... and if we are both right most stock trasnfers have happened because tenants did not know their rights, of which they are now deprived. Many transferw would not have happened if they knew what they were going to lose...
By the way how many tenants told you they did not care about losing specific rights simply because they did not know they had them?
I think may people do not use or care much about their right to vote for parliament.
But just you try to take the right to vote away from them and see where you would end up -