Simply - No there is no right to buy. Right to buy is only for the removal of social rent properties, not a right for tenants as such.
Your succession will depend on the details of the tenancy, and the permission of your landlord - I would think your succession on curernt terms is highly unlikely.
You do have rights under Disrepair - and you should gain advice about this.
A glimmer of hope is that you actually hold a leasehold tenancy instead, in which case again gain advice about this as your potential to purchase the lease could exist.
Check out a good housing law specialist in your locality - it would be worth a small fee to be sure of the advice you are getting especially as getting free advice these days is hard to come by.
Originally you could not be evicted for non payment of a charge that was not rent. However, recent legislation has enabled the privatised water companies to pay fees to councils to act on their behalf by paying the water charges attributable to their stock directly and then collecting it as rent from their tenants.
On the face of it there should be no difference, as tenants are only paying the same as they would under the previous arrangements. However, compared to any other form of tenure the Council tenant is severely disadvantaged as no other tenure can be evicted for not paying the ever growing water bills.
This also flies in the face of the principle lofted over water privatisation of the consumer being in control because they pay the bill directly and are aware of the cost (a piece of Selsdon Group waffle if ever there was one).
What is needed is a proper legal challenge against such an action - but sadly law centres and legal aid are about as easy to find as a socialist in the Labour Party.
Posted in: Rehouse tenant during repairs?
You are the landlord. The primary responsibility for your tenant is yours. Your insurance (if you do not have any then your funds) will have to pay for the essential decanting and rehousing of your tenant. If it is bad enough to require such action, then why have you not carried out your responsibility to your tenant yet?
Once you have acted as a responsible landlord then you can take issue with the Freeholder, the Council, concerning recovery of the costs you have suffered. Your insurer (if you have one) would also be able to pursue recovering their costs from the Freeholder.
Can I ask why you have left your tenant in circumstances that you the landlord consider unsuitable, and do you not realise that your tenant could now sue you successfully because of your admission of failure?
The main group to benefit from the budget will be the financial sector, with their risks further underwritten, their reserves further replenished, their profit margins further assured, and their profits even less taxed.
Oddly, the option is not available in the poll!
Have no fear the answer is clear.
The anti squatter law means you can't live in an empty home (and the empty commercial property is next to be protected.)
The planning laws mean you can't live in a caravan (except on a designated site, paying the dues to the Council.)
The vagrency laws mean you can't live on the streets.
And the recent amendments to local laws mean that you may not even be able to pitch a tent.
Indeed, the anti assembly laws mean that even if you do find somewhere to lay your box, you may only do so if on your own.
Yep, the succession of Tory law, including that beloved by Tory Blair, means that you must accept paying all that you have so that those that have more can keep what they call theirs.
Of course, that won't stop them coming back for whatever else they think you don't deserve!
Posted in: The Regulators Role
Possibly - but absence of comment can be more damaging if rumours are flying around. It's a damned if you do and if you don't type situation.
However, situation and motive is the real measure on this. If the government spokesperson was on a deliberate wrecking aim then what you say is probably true US.
Posted in: Christmas Fun and Frolics
Clearly new records have been set.
Posted in: Christmas Fun and Frolics
Was there a bet in the IH Office as to which blogger could secure the highest number of posts on their blog, and the highest number of consecutive posts on their blog, from a single reader, during December?
In which case it appears Colin has won already, unless others have a secret weapon up their sleeve for the final week!
Posted in: Enforcing 'out of time' court orders
Hi Mark - I don't think any court would look favourably on being asked to enforce such old orders. They're argument will be against your failure to have remedied the cause several years previously.
If after all this time the organisation has failed to take action I would suggest starting again, but this time actually following through. After all, you will have spent good sums of rent-payer's money going through the legal process - which would be wasted again if you simply file the orders and fail to act.
If I were a tenant of your organisation I'd be asking serious questions about management competence.
These people can help you just the same way as they help leaseholders: http://www.lease-advice.org
The rulings of the Leashold Valuation Tribunal are public rulings, you can therefore request sight of these directly. You would be advised to have someone guide you about the ruling though. Most are straightforward but some can be a bit legalspeak.
If, as you believe, a ruling was made in favour of the leaseholders, that includes you, either directly or via your Trust. If the service charge has been reduced, for instance, then it is reduced for the block not just for those you call leaseholders. As a shared owner in a leasehold block you are a leaseholder, unless you own part of the freehold. Even so, as there are common services for which you pay a service charge you are a leaseholder for the purpose of service charge.
The point is that the service charge is tenure blind. Don't be put off. Persist and find the information, It is yours by right.