Offer of £5,000 to swap council flat

kwaks

I see the issue that the OP has. Why should anyone profit for essentially swapping something that is not theirs. In effect those who are high enough on the council list to have a home are placing a financial value on that which they can trade. This is wrong.

I also have issues with the costs that are prevalent in the private housing market, many of these properties are vastly overpriced and create hardship for those not able to get a house/flat from the council, which in turn creates this monetary value for those higher on the list or established in a council property.

"this is unless you live in a poor county where you can still buy a 3 bed house for around £130k?" kinda lost FOURCANDLES all credibility for me, as a 3 bed house for 130K can be found in the majority of this country. Some one forgetting there are people outside SE England?

The UK is a country where we are conditioned to thinking buying is best, whereas many European countries have buyers as the minority and private rents are thus kept competitive, if people wish to rent, that is their choice, however the level of rent should be reflective on the value they gain, £1200 per month for a house which is presumably ex council does not sound like a reflective price to me.

shoe_gal_84

I actually completely agree with the original poster and in response to FOURCANDLES, my partner and I have just purchased a beautiful 3 bedroom house with driveway, garage and garden for £135,000 so it can be done.

carefullycautious

This is a mutual exchange with a cash incentive. However, it is illegal to do this and if the LA found out they can make you leave the property.

This used to go on a lot but it is very unusual to see these kind of adverts after the councils found out about it

It is usually done to move up into a bigger property

Wee_Willy_Harris

carefullycautious wrote: »

This is a mutual exchange with a cash incentive. However, it is illegal to do this and if the LA found out they can make you leave the property.

This used to go on a lot but it is very unusual to see these kind of adverts after the councils found out about it

It is usually done to move up into a bigger property

And is always subject to the approval of the LL. Approval which will be denied if the exchange results in under-occupation.

squinty

Its quite simple. If the council learn that money has changed hand to facilitate an exchange then both tenancies will be at risk.

In seeking possession, the council will use ground 6 (schedule 2 of the 1985 Housing Act) which states:


"The tenancy was assigned to the tenant, or to a predecessor in title of his who is a member of his family and is residing in the dwelling-house, by an assignment made by virtue of section 92 (assignments by way of exchange) and a premium was paid either in conection with that assignment or the assignment which the tenant or predecessor himself made by virtue of that section.


In this paragraph “premium” means any fine or other like sum and any other pecuniary consideration in addition to rent"

Wee_Willy_Harris

squinty wrote: »

Its quite simple. If the council learn that money has changed hand to facilitate an exchange then both tenancies will be at risk.

In seeking possession, the council will use ground 6 (schedule 2 of the 1985 Housing Act) which states:


"The tenancy was assigned to the tenant, or to a predecessor in title of his who is a member of his family and is residing in the dwelling-house, by an assignment made by virtue of section 92 (assignments by way of exchange) and a premium was paid either in conection with that assignment or the assignment which the tenant or predecessor himself made by virtue of that section.


In this paragraph “premium” means any fine or other like sum and any other pecuniary consideration in addition to rent"

And the likelyhood of a judge awarding possession is........ nil.

squinty

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And the likelyhood of a judge awarding possession is........ nil.

No, I disagree.

If a council makes it clear to both parties what the consequences are - and the tenants proceed despite of this it is unlikley that a judge will show the tenant much tolerance.

Wee_Willy_Harris

squinty wrote: »

No, I disagree.

If a council makes it clear to both parties what the consequences are - and the tenants proceed despite of this it is unlikley that a judge will show the tenant much tolerance.

It's hard enough for social landlords to get outright possession for rent arrears, the basic obligation of a tenant. They have NIL chance with a one off contravention of the type described.

squinty

But there is a difference - in rent arrears cases a judge has discretion and can make orders that a postponed on terms and monitor the situation. A tenant has their chance to tell their story, and the judge may be sympathetic.

In a case of an exchange for money, these options are not available. The council can show that a tenant had been made aware of the consequences and despite this had chosen to go ahead. This is much more clear cut and not a matter of interpretation.

Rather than making the comparison with rent arrears, the better comparison would be with possession claims made under Ground 5 - (where a tenancy is granted through a false statement). Judges do more easily offer possession on this ground.

FOURCANDLES_2

shoe_gal_84 wrote: »

i actually completely agree with the original poster and in response to fourcandles, my partner and i have just purchased a beautiful 3 bedroom house with driveway, garage and garden for £135,000 so it can be done.

depends where you live.