Live in council house but rent out my home

BigAunty

pmlindyloo wrote: »

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?

Yes, perhaps. For example, if there's been a fraudulent application whereby the OP concealed that they owned property when applying for it, or didn't notify them about a change of circumstance if they should have, before the property was allocated. This is because social housing policy, and the application forms, seek information on the household to determine if they are in need and will give them the appropriate banding. Owner-occupiers are normally given one of the lowest bandings.

However, there have been circumstances where an owner-occupier has been overcrowded where they are then allocated social housing.

Owning a property is not in itself a bar to becoming a social housing tenant. And buying an investment property after becoming a social housing tenant does not mean the tenant is obliged to give up their tenancy, AFAIK.

But I would think that a council may seek a possession order if they find out that the tenant gave false information to secure the tenancy, or no longer occupies it.

Mojisola

Billyniles wrote: »

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.

Is my situation legal.

Isn't this a business enterprise? If you owned a commercial property and rented it out, that wouldn't be a reason for evicting you so I can't see why this should.

Whether it's right that you benefit from the lower rents in a council property when you have enough money to get into the BTL market is another matter.

Tottyshouse

BigAunty wrote: »

Yes, perhaps. For example, if there's been a fraudulent application whereby the OP concealed that they owned property when applying for it, or didn't notify them about a change of circumstance if they should have, before the property was allocated. This is because social housing policy, and the application forms, seek information on the household to determine if they are in need and will give them the appropriate banding. Owner-occupiers are normally given one of the lowest bandings.

However, there have been circumstances where an owner-occupier has been overcrowded where they are then allocated social housing.

Owning a property is not in itself a bar to becoming a social housing tenant. And buying an investment property after becoming a social housing tenant does not mean the tenant is obliged to give up their tenancy, AFAIK.

But I would think that a council may seek a possession order if they find out that the tenant gave false information to secure the tenancy, or no longer occupies it.

Even then I'm dubious whether a judge would evict on those grounds. The vast majority of application forms we got were utter works of fiction.

My favourite was a gentleman who turned up every single day at the office claiming homelessness. He had to be in a certain area (that just so happened to be highly desirable and where 1 bedroom private flats are in excess of £700 a month) The reason was he had suffered racial abuse in other areas (never substantiated). He had his local MP involved, welfare rights you name it they turned up at our door.

Miraculously he jumped to the head of the queue (thanks to our pitifully weak Chairman) and he came into the office to sign his tenancy agreement on a property others had been waiting in excess of 15 years for. Before he signed he asked about our right to buy policy (strange for someone with no money, no home and in fear of racial attacks to be concerned with buying a property). When he was advised there was no right to buy with Trust properties he got up and walked out never to be seen again.

I could tell you dozens and dozens of stories as blatant as that. Every application was taken with a pinch of salt with regards to the "facts" given.

Judges are hugely reluctant to evict people - especially those who have paid their rent and are basically "model" tenants. Now imagine going in front of a Judge and saying we would like to evict this family of 5 who pay their rent and cause no problems because they did not declare a property they own that currently has a single mother of two with cancer living in it. We seek possession on the grounds our tenant's can evict the single mother of two with cancer and move into that property. I'd say it's highly unlikely.

I'd say the OPs position is morally dubious - but I really could not see him losing his (rented) home.

Morlock

Tottyshouse wrote: »

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.

That sounds like a load of old rubbish, social tenants must live in a property as the sole residence, otherwise they can be evicted.

Billyniles

Thank you everyone for the speedy responses and help. I am just trying to tell my tenant ghat it will be ok for her to stay in the property for as long as she wishes to do so due to get ill health.
Thanks again everyone.

phead

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 was subletting the council property, quite different.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13231419

leveller2911

Morlock wrote: »

That sounds like a load of old rubbish, social tenants must live in a property as the sole residence, otherwise they can be evicted.

Its unusual for me to agree with you Morlock but this tiime I do.

We live in Social housing and the tenancy agreement clearly states that "tenants are not allowed to own a property whilst at the same time being named on the tenancy agreement".

People have got round this by the wife being the tenant on the agreement whilst the husband buys/owns a property elsewhere.

I also think a commercial BTL may be seen differently because its classed as a business.... Not morally right IMO.

Cocobay71

Why should you get cheaper housing from your local council when you can afford on your income to get a mortgage on a buy to let basis property. To me this is wrong and your council property should be taken away from you and given to a family who really cannot afford a normal mortgage for a property.

terryw

leveller2911 wrote: »

We live in Social housing and the tenancy agreement clearly states that "tenants are not allowed to own a property whilst at the same time being named on the tenancy agreement".

People have got round this by the wife being the tenant on the agreement whilst the husband buys/owns a property elsewhere.

I also think a commercial BTL may be seen differently because its classed as a business.... Not morally right IMO./QUOTE]

Interesting. However there is no mention of owning other properties in the application for a council dwelling with my local authority or indeed in the actual tenancy agreements.

It would appear that this differs from authority to authority.

BigAunty

leveller2911 wrote: »

....

We live in Social housing and the tenancy agreement clearly states that "tenants are not allowed to own a property whilst at the same time being named on the tenancy agreement".

....

I have never heard of this clause, though I did tell the OP to check his tenancy agreement anyway.

Frankly, I would think that statutory housing law would over-ride this clause which could be highly unenforceable if it was challenged in court. Private landlords routinely insert clauses into standard ASTs that will never stand up in court. Perhaps this is an example of a social housing landlord putting in a clause that isn't worth the paper it's written on?

One of the constant criticisms about social housing is that while it is usually allocated at the time of great need, there is no basis in legal precedent, housing law or the nature of assured/secure social tenancies, that assist with reclaiming the properties if the need is no longer there or the circumstances of the tenant changes significantly. If a tenant inherits other property, becomes wealthy, is the only occupant in a 5 bedroom property - none of this will trigger the loss of the tenancy. So this is why the owning of another property (so long as the tenant still remains in the rental property as their primary residence) is something that is considered to not affect their social housingn tenancy.

For example, it is still extremely difficult for a council to get possession of a property even if the tenants have arrears, a history of social behaviour and so forth. There really are very few grounds for eviction and judges are extremely reluctant to grant possession notices for social housing landlords.