Council house now to big

debrag

Jowo wrote: »

I agree with Astonsmummy - I'm not aware of any obligation on the part of the tenant to give up a property that is much larger than their needs nor any right for the council to insist that the tenant quits.

The only issue I can see is if the person(s) that are planning to remain in the property are not actually the named tenant on the agreement, in which case they'd need to check if they have any security of tenure or will be evicted.

There is plenty of information on the council website about council housing, including how to make changes to who is on the agreement and the incentives schemes, plus the tenant(s) should read their tenancy agreement.

For example:

Assignment of tenancy to someone else
You may wish to assign your tenancy to another member of your household. The existing tenant would have to give up the tenancy and the rights of the tenancy be passed on to this household member.


Family members who are eligible to take over a tenancy include:

• the tenant's husband/wife or partner
• parents
• grandparents
• children/grandchildren over the age of 16
• brothers and sisters
• uncles and aunts
• nephews and nieces.

Succession to tenancy
If you are a member of a household where the tenant has died, you may be eligible to succeed, or take over, the tenancy.





Family members who are eligible to take over a tenancy include:

• the tenant's husband/wife or partner
• parents grandparents
• children/grandchildren over the age of 16
• brothers and sisters
• uncles and aunts
• nephews and nieces.

Under occupation scheme
Tenants with more bedrooms than they need can be offered smaller, more manageable homes through this scheme. For more information contact 020 8314 8827.

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/Housing/CouncilTenants/YourTenancy/HousingAllocationsChangeOfTenancy.htm
http://www.lewishamhomes.org.uk/

thanks been sending them all this information.

I thought you could only assign the tenancy to someone else once and they did that when their father went into a home.

debrag

Ames wrote: »

Could the brother get on the tenancy agreement, then he'd have more rights.

the meetings tomorrow, it maybe too late. I'll keep everything crossed that it goes okay tomorrow.

newlywed

debrag wrote: »

I thought you could only assign the tenancy to someone else once and they did that when their father went into a home.

Usually yes.
But for our Housing Association who also have that rule, my OH wrote such a nice letter explaining why he wanted it assigned, they agreed. So in some HA cases they can waive it.

cosmic-dust

debrag wrote: »

thanks been sending them all this information.

I thought you could only assign the tenancy to someone else once and they did that when their father went into a home.

I'm thinking the same here, can you imagine if the council were to allow a transfer of tenancy to be passed down time and time again.

Parents down to children
children down to their children etc etc it would be madness imho

Jowo_2

According to the handbook, which is a guide rather than legally binding, succession can only happen once after the original tenants death. There isn't much information on assignment which is where tenancy is transfered by a living tenant. Sounds like you need to check the specifics with the council.

http://www.lewishamhomes.org.uk/editpics/741-1.pdf

bestpud

I'm really not sure why the niece is being blamed for this?

If the sister is the tenant then it is up to her what happens with the tenancy, and, if she decided to move out, all of the others would be homeless.

Seems to me she wanted them to stay there so she can keep the big house and have it paid for with housing benefit, but is now annoyed they want a place of their own. But then they should be on HB and not LHA in which case it won't matter how many rooms they have?

As far as I can see there is no reason why the sister and brother cannot stay in that house and have HB pay all the rent.

They cannot be evicted, and, if the council desperately want the five bed house back (and I am sure they do, but they cannot force her out if she is the legal tenant!), she can probably negotiate her way into a 2 bed property.

So why is everyone having a go at the niece? It sounds far from ideal to me and I think I'd want out too!

debrag

she's not the niece she nothing BUT the nephews girlfriend. The sister is only looking to move out as she feels she'll be told be the council to move.

Right...

sister, brother + nephew (sisters son) and their father lived in the house, father went into a home and is no longer around brother has been told a pack of lies for so long now he has NO clue what is happening. Thought they would loose the house so nephew asked his girlfriend to move in, so she declined the flat she was offered and moved in. Brother assumed that this was the end of it but NO, he was handing over his benefit money for rent etc but still getting in arears (usually they'd spend it on drink), girlfriend we later assumed had made her own arrangements and was paying nothing towards the house, she then gets offered a flat back where she came from (reason she moved in in the first place so she could get a better flat), the offer letter was addressed to her at another address (benefit cheat) so she's leaving. Everyone else thinks again they will loose the house so nephew will go with her leaving two people in the house.

She'll having a farewell party at the moment and they have come up will a plan to tell Avon that she was mugged for the £400 she owes them.

bestpud

debrag wrote: »

she's not the niece she nothing BUT the nephews girlfriend. The sister is only looking to move out as she feels she'll be told be the council to move.

Right...

sister, brother + nephew (sisters son) and their father lived in the house, father went into a home and is no longer around brother has been told a pack of lies for so long now he has NO clue what is happening. Thought they would loose the house so nephew asked his girlfriend to move in, so she declined the flat she was offered and moved in. Brother assumed that this was the end of it but NO, he was handing over his benefit money for rent etc but still getting in arears (usually they'd spend it on drink), girlfriend we later assumed had made her own arrangements and was paying nothing towards the house, she then gets offered a flat back where she came from (reason she moved in in the first place so she could get a better flat), the offer letter was addressed to her at another address (benefit cheat) so she's leaving. Everyone else thinks again they will loose the house so nephew will go with her leaving two people in the house.

She'll having a farewell party at the moment and they have come up will a plan to tell Avon that she was mugged for the £400 she owes them.

Ok, if this is the first time the tenancy has been passed on and the sister is entitled to be the tenant in her own right then they cannot force them out of the house, simple as.

The sister can keep the tenancy, and if the council suggest she move out, she is free to negotiate with them and ask for a two bed so the brother can move in with her.

She could even ask for two one bedromm places and see what they say - it depends how badly the council want the 5 bedroom house.

Sounds like they are well shot of the other one tbh!

Jowo_2

Sorry, Debrag, and I know that you are now researching the information and have a meeting planned, but it all sounds like they live chaotic lives and have made daft/rash decisions based on (probably wrong) assumptions to preserve the tenancy despite it evidentally not being in some people's interest to do this.

I thought it was fairly commonly well known that tenants do not lose the property when the household reduces in number and that council properties cannot be retained when the named tenants move out. The neighbouring borough, Southwark, has an active investigation team whose primary role is to recover illegally sublet properties where the original tenants have moved on and let others live there. Southwark and Camden council are the primary ones that have helped to recover the bulk of 400+ properties recovered in London in 2 years.

Therefore, artificially cramming the property was unnecessary (and counter productive). Those that aren't authorised to live there and cannot be assigned the tenancy will have to sort out onward accommodation (where they may or may not be eligible for social housing themselves due to their imminent homelessness).

astonsmummy

cosmic-dust wrote: »

Something to think about also the LA will not pay for 5 bed rooms if only 1 or 2 bed rooms are required if they are on benefits.

Dont quote me on this but I think this would only apply to LHA.
For instance my nan was living alone in a 3 bed house and got full HB, I had a 3 bed when only a 2 bed was needed and also received full HB.