Live in council house but rent out my home

Billyniles

Hello all, please can someone help me answer this question.
I currently live with my wife and children in a 3 bed council house. I have another home on a buy to let mortgage which is rented to a single mother of two children.
The single mother has recently been diagnosed with cancer for which she is receiving treatment and is currently off work whilst this continues and is therefore getting HB and sick pay. Is my situation legal.
Thanks Billy

pmlindyloo

Not sure which situation you are talking about.

Are you claiming any benefits?

helentay_2

This has a similar feeling to the Met police officer that owned a flat in central London that he let out on a week to week basis as a holiday let. Yet he and his family lived in social housing on the outskirts of the city.

He wasn't claiming any benefits but the housing association took his home off him as it was considered illegal. On top of that he lost his job.

This was a case on 'Saints & Scroungers'.

Tottyshouse

From the information given I can't see anything "illegal" in it. You don't actually have to "need" social housing to be allocated a property. I am sure I read a while back about a very wealthy politcian who owned his own property elsewhere, but also had a council flat in London. All legal and above board.

When I worked in social housing we had a tenant who had one of the Trust's properties in a very affluent and sought after area. He hadn't actually lived in it for over 5 years as he lived and worked over 300 miles away. Our waiting lists for any property was so long we had to close it - but there was absolutely nothing we could do about this tenant.


What part of your particular situation are you concerned may be illegal?

Tottyshouse

helentay wrote: »

This has a similar feeling to the Met police officer that owned a flat in central London that he let out on a week to week basis as a holiday let. Yet he and his family lived in social housing on the outskirts of the city.

He wasn't claiming any benefits but the housing association took his home off him as it was considered illegal. On top of that he lost his job.

This was a case on 'Saints & Scroungers'.

What were the grounds given for eviction? Unless housing law has changed considerably since I worked in it I cannot see the basis for eviction. We couldn't evict our tenant who was not actually living in the property even though he had been subletting it at one stage which was not allowed.
Unless we just have particularly lenient housing circuit judges in my local area!

Dunroamin

Illegal no, immoral yes.

Billyniles

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Not sure which situation you are talking about.

Are you claiming any benefits?

No I'm not claiming benefits but as I own a property which I let out -will the council want me to live in it...,.. And would they take the tenants situation into consideration?

Billyniles

Tottyshouse wrote: »

From the information given I can't see anything "illegal" in it. You don't actually have to "need" social housing to be allocated a property. I am sure I read a while back about a very wealthy politcian who owned his own property elsewhere, but also had a council flat in London. All legal and above board.

When I worked in social housing we had a tenant who had one of the Trust's properties in a very affluent and sought after area. He hadn't actually lived in it for over 5 years as he lived and worked over 300 miles away. Our waiting lists for any property was so long we had to close it - but there was absolutely nothing we could do about this tenant.


What part of your particular situation are you concerned may be illegal?

The fact that the council will take away our council house and force us to live in the property rented out. Will council take into consideration tenants health issues?

BigAunty

Read the terms of your tenancy agreement and what the tenancy handbook says.

I believe there is generally no issues with a social housing tenant who lives in their social housing property while owning a second property elsewhere, even if that one is rented out, or if its a holiday home or anything.

The main clauses that cause conflict with social housing tenancy agreements is when the tenant of the social housing property moves out and it is no longer their primary property. This doesn't apply in your case.

Just read your tenancy agreement and handbook to verify this.

When social housing is allocated, the tenancy agreement is a very secure one, and even if the circumstances of the tenant changes greatly, AFAIK there is no automatic trigger that means they must give up their property if they acquire a buy to let elsewhere.

Social housing tenants with secure tenancies can generally only be evicted (and then with great difficulty) when there are rent arrears, anti social behaviour or they no longer occupy it as their main home.

pmlindyloo

Would it make any difference if the OP had not informed the council that they had a property already when they applied for council housing?

OP seems to think that the council might ask them to move into their own property.

OP, why do you think that?

Tottyshouse

Billyniles wrote: »

The fact that the council will take away our council house and force us to live in the property rented out. Will council take into consideration tenants health issues?

I very much doubt it - the last eviction I was involved with (and this was a few years ago) cost the HA over £42k in Barrister's fees. Unless your housing provider has money to burn an eviction is always the last resort even with serious water tight grounds. Owning another property is not grounds for eviction so the council won't make you do anthing.

However with the reduction in housing benefit for those on HB with a spare bedroom it does make me wonder whether Housing law will be looked at at some point in the future to allow the eviction of those who don't "need" it. Who knows?? I can't see too many people jumping to defend people in that position - except perhaps the Politicians in that situation...