SECURE TENANCY

01/09/2009 5:50 pm

Bank statements wont prove anything. I could change my address today and ask for a 12 month statement tomorrow, right?

I'd have a good look for an official letter with a date older than 12 months. Also if you or your mother claim any benefits that should confirm household occupants.

Just to note, you dont *need* to be a joint tenant to succeed a tenancy upon death. Seems like your asking them to create a joint tenancy so, should anything happen, you would still have to prove you lived there.

01/09/2009 7:42 pm

From the Housing Act 1985, s.87...
A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under a secure tenancy if he occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death and either

— (a)
he is the tenant’s spouse [or civil partner] , or
(b)
he is another member of the tenant’s family and has resided with the tenant throughout the period of twelve months ending with the tenant’s death;

02/09/2009 11:20 am

Did your mother succeed the tenancy herself? succession can only happen once, to avoid a property staying "within a family" in perpetuity. Whilst I agree it may be a pain, I think Barnet Homes should be applauded in absolutely making sure everything is above board, even if it is a pain, else everyone in London could switch their bank account to their elderly parents address and wait for them to pop their clogs so they can get their house. I don't mean it to sound flippant, but through their actions Barnet Homes are acting in the interest of everyone on the waiting list

02/09/2009 12:58 pm

Yes Joe, you're right.

Although I'm sure Barnet Homes wouldn't throw Joseph out onto the street without offering other suitable accomodation first, ie a 1 bed.

As I said before, joint tenants though are legally allowed to succeed (if there hasn't already been a succession). So becoming a joint tenant would give Joseph the legal right to succeed.

I also agree with Harry Lime. We're no longer in a position where properties can be just handed through families like they were in the 60's and 70's. So it's a landlords responsibilty to make sure that any claim for succession is real.

Also Joseph, just out of interest why would you not move into a 1 bedroom property? This would free up the 2 bedroom for a family to enjoy it like yours have for so many years?

09/09/2009 2:05 pm

The point on the housing shortage, or lack of, is an interesting one. Whilst there may be sufficient homes in the UK to accommodate everyone, some are uninhabitable, some are in locations where there is no demand and quite a lot are the wrong size for the number of people that live in them.

One example of this could be someone who wants a 2 bed flat, despite living on their own, because they would like a spare room. That's a perfectly human desire, but we are talking about tax payers' money here and I for one would like to think my contribution goes towards making sure that everyone can have a decent home, not making sure that some people get exactly the home they want whilst others are left languishing in B+B.

09/09/2009 6:34 pm

I agree with you Kass regarding a 3 bedroom. It would be a bit cheeky to expect to stay in a house that size. However, Councils seem to be judging people on who they are when they are making these decisions. A friend of mine in the same borough was moved from his 3 bed to a 2 bed. Him being the only tenant when his mother passed away.

A secure tanancy is no longer a secure tenancy according to a lot of Housing staff. Contracts can be amended, which begs the question what's the point in having a tenancy in the first place. As far as I am concerned 'the lack of Social Housing' has nothing whatsoever to do with Tenancy agreements 12 years ago. Any amendments of Tenure should be made illegal.

09/09/2009 7:31 pm

The secure tenancy agreement hasn't changed, the rights are part of the 1985 Housing Act which also outlines succession terms.

This is part of my job I hate, informing people that they have to leave their family home and move to a one bedroom flat, very often only weeks after they have suffered the death of a loved one.

You say "People who worked in housing used to have basic feelings" - People desperate for a home say the same type of thing to me, and also ask why single people are living in 3 bed house that would suit them perfectly. I dont mean to sound harsh and I honesty appreciate your situation but social landlords need to make best use of the dwindling housing stock.

Locally, we are offering tenants £1000 per bedroom if they down size to a smaller property which in my opinion reflects the situation. For example a sole tenant in a four bed property would get high priority on their application, direct let status and £3000 in cash. We have about 25,000 people on the waiting list which we are also legally obliged to assist.

10/09/2009 10:33 am

Harry Lime Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:04 GMT ....
I am not in favour of giving 2 bedrooms to single tenants in case of a NEW tenancy. WE are not talking about that here... But it is my understanding that once you get a tenancy (at least a secure one) you get a home for life... It's your home... There is nothing in the tenancy agreement of a two bedroom flat stating if one of the 2 or 3 tenants in it dies and there is a single tenant left in this two bedroom flat which says you must move into a one bedroom flat... The only way that a tenant should move in my view is if he moves of his own accord or is given an incentive to do so, as Martin Leeds points out in his comment above... So when you say that this tenant should have no choice but leave his flat and get a one bedroom what you really are saying is: either 1) tenancy agreements should not be respected by landlords; or 2) tenancy agreements should be declared null by the governement and all tenancies awarded should be awarded as temporary accomodations rather than permanent homes.... So, which of the 2 options would you choose which would fit in with you being realistic?

10/09/2009 10:57 am

I would choose Neither Kass as the ORIGINAL tenancy is being respected, the whole issue of this thread is being to circumvent the tenancy process. My parents signed a tenancy with the council, they later exercised RTB (the shame!). However using that example their tenancy ran as normal and that was my home, theoretically if I remained at home and didn't move out, it was still under their tenancy, and there shouldn't be the assumption that the child of the original tenant is going to remain, much less "awarded" the property upon their death. In this example the tenancy hasn't been issued to Joseph, he just happens to have remained there. He is attempting to alter an original agreement to alow himself to remain and coming up against some, in my opinion, justifiable obstacles. What if he suceeds, and then has a child and history repeats itself, eventually it has to come to an end. Social housing should be set up so that the original tenancy is respected and anything else should be discretionary. If you disagree, as mentioned, explain it to the other people on the waiting list.

10/09/2009 11:56 am

Whether or not I may have good reason to WISH to remain there, the point is still that the original tenancy agreement is being respected and the wish of anyone to remain there should be discretionary, and not a given right. Affordabilty and other factors mean the chances of "children" remaining in the family home is only going to increase and so the 3 bed house scenario is going to increase, and like it or not, Joseph would not be given a 2 bed property in other circumstances, so the wish to enjoy it to enable people to stay as opposed to others in genuine hoousing need should remain exactly that, a wish. It's not nice admittedly, but it's a realistic use of limited resources.