Council houses for fixed terms only!

Wee_Willy_Harris

mumcoll wrote: »

They are not moving to adapted properties, just OAP bungalows. Nothing different to the ones they could buy themselves. I know of several who's properties they live in are worth in excess of £180k and a nice 2 bed bungalow in the same area are sold for approximately £160k.

We recently had a couple allocated one of our nicer bungalows who ummed and ahhed about it because the kitchen is too small compared to what they have in their own house.

And I do understand that it's not always black and white.

Well, there are clearly medical reasons for their current home to be unsuitable, hence the medical priority you mentioned. As for the money side of things? Well, if they wish to realise an asset and take the benefit hit that entails (no pension credits, no council tax benefit, no housing benefit, CGT etc) then that is a choice for the individual to make.

WhiteHorse

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

What attitude? He was granted a secure tenancy with the right of succession. Maybe he had more than one child and wished to decree his wishes as to which should benefit from the RIGHT to succeed. In much the same way that a homeowner may stipulate how his home is disposed of in the event of his death.

He didn't own the property, so he had no right to dispose of it.

WhiteHorse

mumcoll wrote: »

I think it's wrong that people who own their own home outright are allowed to be given Housing Associaton properties. They go down the medical route, move up the list and are housed in bungalows. I don't understand why they don't sell their large houses and buy a two bed bungalow that would suit their needs. Oh no, they have a nice large lump of cash in their bank and they take a bungalow that could have been given to someone who may be in private rented accommodation.

I recently came across an elderly but quite fit couple who sold a good house for £100,000 and then successfully applied for a council house. They gave £50,000 to their children and kept the other £50,000 themselves.

How can that be right?

Wee_Willy_Harris

WhiteHorse wrote: »

He didn't own the property, so he had no right to dispose of it.

He had a tenancy sgreement which contained an express right to succession, He excersised that right.

Wee_Willy_Harris

WhiteHorse wrote: »

I recently came across an elderly but quite fit couple who sold a good house for £100,000 and then successfully applied for a council house. They gave £50,000 to their children and kept the other £50,000 themselves.

How can that be right?

Both Housing Benefits/LHA and the DWP will treat them as if they still have the full amount and their benefits will be adjusted accordingly. A gift of £50,000 will be viewed as deprivation of assets.

WhiteHorse

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

He had a tenancy sgreement which contained an express right to succession, He excersised that right.

That may or may not be so, but you miss the point. He cannot do so in a Will. There may be some confusion between assigning a tenancy and succeeding to one. Obviously, a dead person is not capable of assigning anything.

Clarify ... are you saying that a Council tenant has the right to 'nominate' his children? And that they can in turn 'nominate' their children? Forever?

Consider ...

Section 87 of the Housing Act 1985 sets out who may succeed to a Secure tenancy.
This states that a person is qualified to succeed if he or she occupies the property as his or her only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death and is either:

1. The tenant’s spouse
2. Another member of the tenant’s family who has resided with the tenant for the twelve months ending with the tenants death. Family members include husband/wife, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces. Step and half relatives are treated as full blood relatives.

Section 87 of the Housing Act 1985 also details that a person cannot succeed to a tenancy if there has already been a succession. Therefore, there can only be one succession to a Secure Tenancy.

Section 88 details the circumstances in which a person will become a successor:

1. The tenancy passed to them in accordance with the Housing Act, when the tenant died.
2. In certain circumstances when a fixed term tenancy comes to an end.
3. When a joint tenant has become a sole tenant.
4. If the tenancy has been assigned to the tenant in accordance with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the person assigning the tenancy over was already a successor.
5. If an assignment takes place under section 91 of the Housing Act 1985 (assignment to a person who would theoretically qualify to succeed if the tenant would have died at the time of the application for the assignment)

Wee_Willy_Harris

WhiteHorse wrote: »

That may or may not be so, but you miss the point. He cannot do so in a Will.

Clarify ... are you saying that a Council tenant has the right to 'nominate' his children? And that they can in turn 'nominate' their children?

Forever?

No. If you'd read the thread, or bothered to find out anything about succession, you would know that each tenancy has a maximum of one succession.

As for his nomination rights via a will? If there is no spouse to succeed, the tenancy can be passed to one child. If there is more than one child eligable to succeed, it is left to the family to decide which one it should be. It would be perfectly reasonable for the tenant to use his will to let his family know what his wishes would be.

EDIT: Sort of answered most of your own question with the edit.

WhiteHorse

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No. If you'd read the thread, or bothered to find out anything about succession ...

Better to say 'I think you are in error'.

I will enquire of my local council whether or not they consider that a preference expressed in a will has any legal force.

Wee_Willy_Harris

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Better to say 'I think you are in error'.

I will enquire of my local council whether or not they consider that a preference expressed in a will has any legal force.

I wouldn't suggest that it over-rides a councils succession policy and proceedures. But it does allow the family to make an informed decision with his preference in mind. Seems reasonable enough to me.

princeofpounds

Just been catching up on some of this thread, it's gone into quite an interesting area in terms of succession of tenancies.

A lot of people are understandably critical of this concept. Those defending it seem to rest their argument on two principles:

1. It's the legal right as that was the deal they signed up to
2. There is a principle of unlimited security of tenure.

The first point is totally irrelevant. Not because it isn't practically important - it is for past tenancies - but because it has no bearing on whether we should allow permanent tenancies and succession going forwards. Just because the taxpayer cut a bad deal at some point doesn't necessarily mean that it should be continued for all future council tenants.

The second is a somewhat curious argument, because it begs a question. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone to have lifetime and sometimes inter-generational security of tenure? Surely we should be asking this question rather than taking it as an unarguable axiom?

I'm genuinely interested to hear why because I can't think of any good reasons. I can think of some good reasons for limited secure tenure, but the award of lifetime and inter-generational security does seem quite excessive. It's certainly a perk that is entirely unavailable to the private renter, so would appear to be the provision of benefits better than what we would expect 'ordinary' people to live with. But even setting aside the relative argument - what is the real idea behind lifetime and succession tenure? Just because security is 'nice' to have doesn't really cut it.