Advice wanted re: Council and refusing to move us???

ninky_2

i would have thought that the 'legality' of children sharing a bedroom is only the coucil's responsibility if you have a valid claim for social housing. if however you have invalidated your claim by having arrears it's not longer their responsibility - if it was anyone with children of opposite sexes could make a claim for social housing just by choosing to live somewhere without enough bedrooms.

Jowo_2

jonuk7 wrote: »

...As far as the arrears go, if it is suddenly a problem NOW why was it not a problem in the first place when they said here have this swish 2 bedroom ..

Yes, I'm surprised that the council assisted you as they have no statutory obligation to provide support to those with rent arrears if they could have paid their rent, nor why they allocated you a 2 bedroom property if you are the non-resident parent. Single healthy males without dependents usually get short thrift. Perhaps you had primary custody of your son and therefore they are obliged to help those with dependents.

Was it because the council only received confirmation that the MOD were evicting you because you were no longer entitled to accommodation and the MOD did not use the process for rent arrears? Were you served an S21 or S8 before the court process to evict you where you paid either no rent or the equivalent of £280 rent short each month for a year?

Or was it because you were on your own in that large property and only qualified for the shared accommodation rate of LHA? If it only part covered the rent, perhaps the council could not argue that you could have paid the full rent so could not blame your behaviour for the rent arrears?

££sc££

My organsiation will prevent some applicants from going on the register in line with our internal policy. One exclusion is: The applicant owes money to another social landlord and has not kept
agreements to pay the debt for a reasonable period (6 months to a year depending on size of debt). I'd ask to see the policy if i was in your shoes but perhaps wait for their decision if they're still awaiting MOD's reference.
I think the overcrowdig issue is a bit irrelevant to i'm afraid, they're guidelines not law

N79

Jowo wrote: »

Yes, I'm surprised that the council assisted you as they have no statutory obligation to provide support to those with rent arrears if they could have paid their rent, nor why they allocated you a 2 bedroom property if you are the non-resident parent. Single healthy males without dependents usually get short thrift. Perhaps you had primary custody of your son and therefore they are obliged to help those with dependents.

Was it because the council only received confirmation that the MOD were evicting you because you were no longer entitled to accommodation and the MOD did not use the process for rent arrears? Were you served an S21 or S8 before the court process to evict you where you paid either no rent or the equivalent of £280 rent short each month for a year?

Or was it because you were on your own in that large property and only qualified for the shared accommodation rate of LHA? If it only part covered the rent, perhaps the council could not argue that you could have paid the full rent so could not blame your behaviour for the rent arrears?

MOD tenancies are not ASTs (schedule 1 para 11 edit: of the Housing Act 1988 forbids it) and are, in fact, licences to occupy, so S21 / S8 not really relevant.

In this case, from reading the posts, the OP was a victim of council gate guarding where they made the OP wait until the MOD actually evicted him. Why the arrears built, is, of course, another question - and without knowing why the arrears built it is impossible to do more than speculate as to whether the OP was intentionally or unintentionally homeless.

Jowo_2

N79 wrote: »

MOD tenancies are not ASTs (schedule 1 para 11 edit: of the Housing Act 1988 forbids it) and are, in fact, licences to occupy, so S21 / S8 not really relevant.

.

Good point. The following ARRSE forum explains a bit more how this works.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/rhq-personnel-pay-discipline/71377-ive-been-discharged-how-long-can-i-stay-married-quarter.html

and this doc, too, about how they become irregular occupants if they don't leave when requested

http://www.aff.org.uk/linkedfiles/aff/housing/housing_faqsamended200109.pdf

N79

Jowo wrote: »

Good point. The following ARRSE forum explains a bit more how this works.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/rhq-personnel-pay-discipline/71377-ive-been-discharged-how-long-can-i-stay-married-quarter.html

and this doc, too, about how they become irregular occupants if they don't leave when requested

http://www.aff.org.uk/linkedfiles/aff/housing/housing_faqsamended200109.pdf

If you want the real rules, and like working your way through bureaucratic treacle, then the official document is

JSP464

(JSP = Joint Service Publication, part 1 deals with the UK).

I'm sure it will have been leaked onto the internet somewhere, quite possible even deliberately (and I guess my knowing this single useless fact betrays something about my past:D) Edit: Yup - its here http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3C09CB15-E95C-41CF-8A06-13027254A03B/0/jsp464part1.pdf

Wee_Willy_Harris

The arrears and the overcrowding are 2 different issues.

Arrears issue.

Two possibilities.

One, the LA weren't aware of your arrears when your current accommodation was allocated. In your OP you seem to imply that the first you knew of any arrears was when... "I received a letter from the MOD at my NEW address demanding £3362 for rent Leaving the armed forces.".

Two. As a forces leaver, with a child, you were accepted as homeless and in priority need. As such, the LA have a DUTY to house you, regardless of any arrears.

Either way, as of now you are not homeless and the LA has no DUTY to re-house, so your historic rent arrears may be used as a reason to deny re-housing. I'm sure they have plenty of families on their list without arrears. It would be perverse if you were housed WITH arrears when they weren't.

Overcrowding.

Children CAN legally share at ANY age. Individual LAs will have their own rules and guidelines, but that is all they are. After all, if you had a nice, two bed house, in an area you liked and in which you wished to remain, you wouldn't expect to be evicted as soon as your eldest reached 10 would you? Most LA's will infer a "reasonable preference" on those in housing need, including overcrowding, but this preference will not overturn a decision regarding rent arrears, which is a separate issue.

Children from split families are also usually deemed to have a "primary residence". As such, their housing need is considered relative to that residence, not to any other residence they may visit on a part time basis. Your son will be deemed to be adequately housed with his mother.

The overcrowding legislation is found under Section X of the 1985 Housing Act. I warn you now, it makes pretty grim reading, with children under 1 being discounted, children under 10 being counted as half a person and just about any room used as a bedspace. From what you have stated, I think you will fall way short of the minimum requirement.

So, in short, no, the Council don't HAVE to move you.

However, you have been offered reasonable preference on the list and the only issue holding you up is your arrears. Address them and you may well get your wish.

Tiddlywinks

Correct me here if I'm wrong....

You owe a large amount of money which, given your repayment plan, will take years to repay...

You are living on benefits (no judgement, just being factual)...

You already feel that you, your GF and your and her kids are overcrowded in your existing flat...

You then CHOOSE to expand your family by having a baby??????? How will that help?

Madjock

Regarding the arrears, the OP stated that the MOD sent a letter to the new address demanding payment of the £3k, so the arrears did not exist when the council offered the original property, but they do exist now.

So the council have done nothing wrong, you were just lucky when you were offered your property that the arrears didn't officially exist then, cos they would not have offered the property back then, believe me.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Madjock wrote: »

Regarding the arrears, the OP stated that the MOD sent a letter to the new address demanding payment of the £3k, so the arrears did not exist when the council offered the original property, but they do exist now.

So the council have done nothing wrong, you were just lucky when you were offered your property that the arrears didn't officially exist then, cos they would not have offered the property back then, believe me.

That depends. Leaving MOD accommodation may have meant that he was accepted as homeless. As such, the Council would have accepted a duty to re-house and the discharge of that duty would not be dependant on any previous tenancy issues.