Abimbola Badejo's posts
Posted in: ALMO - Notice to quit - is this lawful
If your mother is being transferred to a residential unit either managed by the landlord or another social housing provider, then your mother will not be entitled to assign the property to your daughter as she is effectively being transferred to another unit of social housing and she cannot assign the former dwelling. If you mother wishes to relocate elsewhere then, in law, provided she is not a successor herself, she can assign the property to a potential successor without requiring the consent of her landlord.
In my experience of assisting these boards and indeed working as a board member, employees of other housing associations have been board members. I can understand your employer preventing you from applying to work on the board of a "competitor housing association". That is obviously a contractual matter. However, I do not believe that you are prohibited from being on the board of a housing association simply because you are employed by another housing association.
Posted in: Joint to Sole tenancies
This an interesting question. In my view there is no such concept as joint to sole tenancy. The real joint to sole tenancy occurs when a joint tenant dies and tenancy thereby becomes a sole tenancy under what is called the right of survivorship. Under the Housing Act 1985 that is a succession.
In the situation you have described what you are trying to do is bring the joint tenancy to and end. Both joint tenants have to agree. They will effectively be surrendering the tenancy. If you accept the surrender you can then grant a new tenancy to the remaining partner. As you are granting a new tenancy it all has to be within your allocation scheme and you can refuse to accept the surrender if the remaining tenant refuses to move to alternative accommodation. However I am sure you want the large property back so if your council offers some incentives for tenants to downsize then you should offer that to the proposed sole tenant.
Posted in: Lost Tenancy Agreement
Yes they can provided they have served you with a notice setting out their address where you can serve documents on them.
Posted in: New regs and transfers
It is early days yet but I would expect that the proposals will only apply to new tenants and not existing secure tenants seeking a transfer.
Posted in: Licence to cross Housing Land
This question is very complex and requires the input of a property lawyer. There is a lot to look into and it will be unwise to give any sort of answer other than to ask the writer to seek specific legal advice.
Posted in: Notice via text message
The simple answer first. The landlord cannot have the tenant out at the end of the notice period because the landlord requires a possession order to regain possession of premises let as a dwelling.
The more difficult question is whether the notice by text is a valid notice. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 provides that a notice to quit will not be valid unless it is in writing and it is given not less than 4 weeks before the date that it is due to take effect. If we assume that 4 weeks notice has been given the crucial question is whether the notice by text is notice in writing to comply with the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I think that a useful guide to answering that question will be to consider the tenancy agreement. This will usually require notice to be in writing and sent by post or delivered to the landlord's address for service. The mobile phone number will not comply with either of those requirements. Therefore it is highly likely in my view that the notice sent by text will not be a valid notice to quit unless the landlord has specified in the tenancy agreement that written notice can be demeed to be given by the tenant if sent by text. I have not seen such a clause in any tenancy agreement and I suspect that courts will be reluctant to accept that this form of terminating a tenancy is not valid on the basis that this method of service is open to abuse and possible mischief. I believe therefore that the tenant can argue that this purported of termination is inadequate in law.
The landlord may argue that even if the notice was invalid, the text message was an unequivocal offer by the tenant to give up the tenancy after the 4 week period of notice which the landlord accepted. That in law amounts to a surrender of the tenancy. For a surrender to operate to terminate the tenancy there must in effect be an offer to surrender and an acceptance of that offer by the landlord. If the landlord has not acted in a manner consistent with the continuation of the tenancy, I suspect the landlord may have strong grounds for arguing that there has been an acceptance of the surrender of the tenancy thereby bringing the tenancy to an end. Without a full knowledge of the background it is difficult to say much more than this. But the starting point is that the tenant should maintain that the notice to quit was simply not a valid notice and there has been no agreement by the parties to waive the invalidity.
Posted in: Preserved Right to Buy or Right to Acquire?
You have raised a very technical point about rent increases which is very difficult to go into. It is all about the rules which provide that there can only be one rent increase in a year. I am not sure that the name or type of tenancy really matters in that context.
Posted in: Duty of care question
Check your tenancy agreement very carefully. If you landlord has agreed to take action to deal with complaints of anti social behaviour made by tenants then you may have grounds for trying to compel your landlord to take some steps to reduce the effects of the anti social behaviour you are experiencing. I find it difficult to accept that the fuse box cannot simply be boxed in. It will cost less than the costs of the landlord taking legal advice if you decide to take matters further. Another way out is for you to try and do the works. However the landlord will most likely not pay your costs.
Posted in: Preserved Right to Buy or Right to Acquire?
In my opinion, you retain your preserved right to buy. The law is very clear on this. If you had a right to buy at the date of your transfer from the local authority then upon transfer you keep that right. It is known as the preserved right to buy and that right would have been set out in the offer document and the tenancy agreement that you signed upon transfer. That tenancy agreement should have also said that if you transfer to another home owned by your landlord you still retain your right to buy. All these matters should have been in the offer document so please check that document carefully. To my mind for the purpose of the preserved right to buy, the description of your new tenancy is strictly not relevant. The right moves with you.