We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council houses for fixed terms only!
Comments
-
The point being it's mental that a tenant has the right to tell the landlord who should have the property if they die.
If a tenant dies then it should go to the first in the general housing queue, it should not go to his grown up children! If people want that right then to me they should buy their own place. If this is what is allowed then no wonder some council tenants have this entitlement attitude.
M_o_3
PS I'm not talking about tenants where a parent dies leaving another parent and underage children in the property (although I guess they would have a joint tenancy anyway?).
It's in the tenancy agreement. That's what they signed up to. Those are their rights. There is, of course, a heirarchy of succession, but the problem could occur when there are more than one of the tenants children (inc grown up children) living at home. It is usually left to the family to decide who, if any, should succeed the tenancy. Obviously, the parents expressed wishes may assist in making this decision. Tenants, such as the one who let his wishes be known in his will, are expressing no more, and no less, than the entitlement that they have. It's not an attitude, it's an actual entitlement.
To answer your PS, a joint tenancy changing to a sole tenancy on death of a partner is a succession. A sole tennancy changing to a sole tenancy when the tenant partner dies would be a succession. Only one succession is allowed so, if mum and dad were joint tenants, dad dies, mum succeeds so no-one else can succeed that tenancy, even if mum were to re-marry. Succession effects only a small minority of social tenancies.0 -
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »It's in the tenancy agreement. That's what they signed up to. Those are their rights. There is, of course, a heirarchy of succession, but the problem could occur when there are more than one of the tenants children (inc grown up children) living at home. It is usually left to the family to decide who, if any, should succeed the tenancy. Obviously, the parents expressed wishes may assist in making this decision. Tenants, such as the one who let his wishes be known in his will, are expressing no more, and no less, than the entitlement that they have. It's not an attitude, it's an actual entitlement.
Yes, yes I get that it IS their right, I am just expressing my surprise that this right exists. I can't believe that someone somewhere actually put this into force. Just like the right to tenancy for life it just seems to have been written with no forethought for the future state of social housing.0 -
Yes, yes I get that it IS their right, I am just expressing my surprise that this right exists. I can't believe that someone somewhere actually put this into force. Just like the right to tenancy for life it just seems to have been written with no forethought for the future state of social housing.
It's all part of the security of tenure. The main use of succession is between partners. I'm sure you wouldn't see Mrs Tenant and her kids thrown out onto the streets after her husband dies just because they didn't have a joint tenancy, or would you? Other than between partners, children are usually the other main group to benefit. But they have to have been living in the tenancy for a minimum period prior to the death of the tenant (usually 12 months). It's worth noting also that, if the succession would lead to under occupancy, the housing provider can block it and offer an alternative property more suitable to meet the successor's needs. In all cases, succession is not as common as you may have been led to believe, and even less so outside couples/joint tenants.0 -
I'm sure you wouldn't see Mrs Tenant and her kids thrown out onto the streets after her husband dies just because they didn't have a joint tenancy, or would you? Nah, I'm not that heartless.
Same goes if one or the other has an affair and leaves, of course they should stay in the house.
Other than between partners, children are usually the other main group to benefit. But they have to have been living in the tenancy for a minimum period prior to the death of the tenant (usually 12 months). It's worth noting also that, if the succession would lead to under occupancy, the housing provider can block it and offer an alternative property more suitable to meet the successor's needs. But, I guess they can not force the under-occupier to move? What happens if the child wouldn't have a right to a council tenancy if they had to apply for it?
Couldn't quote your post properly WWH as the forum wouldn't recognise my reply!
0 -
They tried that in the past by giving private tenants more rights, what happened then was a lot of landlords sold up rent prices went sky high and in came 6 month contracts. Rents in the UK used to be fairly reasonable back in the 70'sWee_Willy_Harris wrote: »Then perhaps the private rented sector needs to be brought UP to a level closer to social housing, rather than the provision of social housing dragged DOWN to that of the private sector?0 -
But, I guess they can not force the under-occupier to move? What happens if the child wouldn't have a right to a council tenancy if they had to apply for it?
Yes, they can be "forced" to take alternative accommodation after the introduction of "assured" tenancies in the 1988 HA. Almost everybody has the right to apply for social housing. Sadly, not all will qualify for such an allocation. But the right of succession means that anyone in a position to be the sole successor to a tenancy who would normally qualify for such a tenancy has a right to succeed it. It's one element of the overall security of tenure, which is the whole ethos behind social housing.0 -
They tried that in the past by giving private tenants more rights, what happened then was a lot of landlords sold up rent prices went sky high and in came 6 month contracts. Rents in the UK used to be fairly reasonable back in the 70's
It was a very different housing market then. Frankly, I think the time may have come to address the current poor protection offered to tenants, who have very few rights under the 1988 HA.0 -
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »And how, exactly, is that a "greater privilege" than a private owner?
No capital gains tax?...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »Most don't. Almost 60% of tenancies last less than 10 years. And even the very few 60 year tenancies will include people who have moved within social housing (transfer/exchange).
Right. So there's no objection to moving the over-housed, if suitable accommodation is available for them to be moved to....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »No capital gains tax?
Or Inheritance tax0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards