Council House Tenancy Query

Snorkerz

A couple I know have been offered a temporary council home (6 months). The application was in both names - the reason it is only temp is because "he" didn't pay rent on the previous place so they're considered "intentionally homeless".

They haven't moved into the new place yet and "she" is wondering if it would be feasible for the council tenancy to be just in "her" name.

"He" is her childrens father, hence she doesn't want him not living in the property but she doesn't want him on the tenancy in case he repeats his previous immature financial behaviour.

If she can get "him" off the application she also has a chance to lose the "intentionaly homeless" tag.

They're not married.

Jowo_2

I thought probationary periods are fairly normal for new social housing tenancies - if she were allowed to transfer it to her sole name, would this necessarily lift this probationary period? Does the social housing landlord require this for all new tenants?

Snorkerz

I didn't realise the probationary period was 'normal' - though I guess it makes sense.

However, she would still be interested in finding out if their joint application can result in a sole tenancy. As I say, she is worried about a joint tenancy (for her & 2 infants) incase "He" becomes a financial liablilty again.

Jowo_2

I think they call them 'introductory' tenancies rather than probationary one.

Suppose she does get the tenancy in her sole name, how does this protect her from the effects of his poor budgeting if she's relying on him to pay the bills and rent? Or are they both on benefits? Reason I ask is that, yes, if she's the sole tenant then she does take sole responsibility for paying the rent and can make him leave but if they have shared finances, how is this going to help overall?

Is the partner happy if she has a sole tenancy as I expect she'd have to re-apply in her sole name if it's not already been set up and signed?

Snorkerz

Thanks Jowo

Both are on benefits - but he works P/T (declared). However, he as not been contributing to rent etc (or even the kids upkeep). "She" has told him that his wages now have to go into her bank account, and he can have whatever is left, which he has agreed to, but the obvious suspicion is that he will soon stop doing so. If he does, she wants him out - but that would be much harder if he is on the tenancy.

If "She" was me, I'd have kicked him out months ago.

Her previous tenancy was in her name only, and therefore she is the only one who has been 'evicted' and I wondered if this would give her any right to decide whom should be on the tenancy.

squinty

I'm not sure if the prevous posters have been correct.

It is very possible that if the council have found them to be intentionally homleless they have not been offered a probationary tenancy, but a non-secure tenancy. This could be for a period of 6 months to allow them to find alternative accommodtion, and they will have to leave.

Check the wording on the tenancy.

I'm confused by the claim "If she can get "him" off the application she also has a chance to lose the "intentionaly homeless" tag." - probably not: if the tenancy was in her sole she was responsible for ensuring the rent was paid, and be failing to do so she is (probably) intentionally homeless.

Snorkerz

Squinty:

Originally "They" had a joint tenancy. Landlord illegally(?) ended that tenancy and granted a new one to "her" and the kids after "He" had failed to make some rent payments. (At the time, one of the conditions was that he move out - illegal eviction - but he has subsequently moved back in, having taken advice regarding the landlords rights). Therefore the last tenancy (in her name) had no rent arrears but the council work on the basis that "He" has a history of non payment.

I have researched the argument, and am confident that as she was not evicted by s8 or specifically for rent arrears (although the original rent arrears are the real reason she was evicted) then their determination that she is intentionally homeless is winable on appeal - IF he is not on the paperwork.

neverdespairgirl

If the rent arrears arose on a joint tenancy, she's also liable for them, though.

squinty

Snorkerz wrote: »

Squinty:

Originally "They" had a joint tenancy. Landlord illegally(?) ended that tenancy and granted a new one to "her" and the kids after "He" had failed to make some rent payments. (At the time, one of the conditions was that he move out - illegal eviction - but he has subsequently moved back in, having taken advice regarding the landlords rights). Therefore the last tenancy (in her name) had no rent arrears but the council work on the basis that "He" has a history of non payment.

I have researched the argument, and am confident that as she was not evicted by s8 or specifically for rent arrears (although the original rent arrears are the real reason she was evicted) then their determination that she is intentionally homeless is winable on appeal - IF he is not on the paperwork.

To be fair that is different from your original post.

Why did they lose thier last home?

deary65

You may be better posting on the landlordzone;)

Snorkerz

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

If the rent arrears arose on a joint tenancy, she's also liable for them, though.

Agreed, and 'she' has been paying it off. But the tenancy she was evicted from was a sole tenancy, which was not in arrears. Example, you can not be evicted under section 8 for arrears that happened on a different tenancy. She is still legally liable, but can't be evicted because of it.