Live in council house but rent out my home

Mojisola

BigAunty wrote: »

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.

I've never understood why housing is given out on the basis of need but a continuing need isn't part of the contract.

At the very least, rents should be means tested so that higher earners pay more.

As for Billy, his home is secure and so he can reassure his tenant that she will be able to stay in her home, too.

leveller2911

BigAunty wrote: »

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?

You may be right, it also states we are not allowed to keep "un roadworthy" vehicles on the drives but when tenants have them propped up on bricks with no MOT,wheels etc rusting away they have been unable/unwilling to remove them. I don't really understand this as we all signed the tenancy on the basis of the rules set out within the tenancy.

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.

Partially agree but would suggest that it depends on the situation when the tenancy agreement was signed so if they owned a property at the time of signing the tenancy then this is clearly a breach of tenancy if it states they should not own an existing property.If however they inherited a property after the tenancy began I agree with you.

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.

The only family on out development that was evicted was evicted for £5,000-00 rent arrears which is over a years rent.They were very anit social, fighting,verbally abusive, owned 2 cars driven daily with not tax,mor or insurance and the Housing Association were lacklustre at best and frankly bloody useless.

Tottyshouse

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.

I can assure you it is not rubbish. All he had to claim was he lived in his employer's property for work and his Trust property was still his main residence. Impossible to prove otherwise. He paid his rent. He paid his council tax. He was allowed to retain his tenancy. If you had even the slightest experience of any subject you seem to think you are an expert in (which seems to be every subject going from your posts) you would know the difference between knowing and proving something are worlds apart.

Off you trot now and try and and find some statistics on google to back up your assertion.

underling

I have lived in a one bed housing association flat since I was 20 and two years after I moved in a relative die and I inherited a four bedroom property. The property was already let-out to a family on a periodic tenancy so the rent began to be paid to me. I informed the housing association and council. The only thing that happed was my housing benefit stopped due to the rental income I was receiving. I still live in the one bed flat, and have converted the living room in to a second bedroom which I rent out to a friend. He claims housing benefit. I am also about to move to a two bed flat in a mutual exchange, so we can have more room. If I can do this then I’m sure your situations legal.

Tottyshouse

leveller2911 wrote: »

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.

You are aware you can put any clause into a tenancy agreement - the vast majority are not enforcable?. You have to have a judge prepared to evict on the basis of housing law. There is nothing in housing law as far as I am aware (I am not a Housing Barrister but I have experience of many attempted eviction cases) that gives grounds for possession due to owning another property.

All tenancies include clauses about anti social behaviour that does not mean every nightmare neighbour is out on their ear. It is very very difficult to be granted a possession order in social housing. It took 4 years and over 40k to get one hugely anti social tenant out of one of our properties. She used it as a basis for prostitution and drug dealing. She and her boyfriend/pimp of the moment regularly physically attacked other residents in the block. The property was trashed and she was in large arrears. Time and time again she went to court with her legal aid lawyer who painted a picture of a woman with problems/ trying to get her life together etc. etc. ad infinitum. Time and again the Judge refused to enforced the suspended possession order.

She was only finally denied leave to appeal her latest possession order when she verbally attacked the Judge and her own solicitor refused to deal with her anymore due to her abusive and threatening behaviour.

I cannot stress enough just how difficult it is for any social housing provider to evict a tenant - even if they are in rent arrears up to their eyeballs and are torturing neighbours. They will be given a suspended possesion order that will basically rarely be enforced due to the cost. Hence why social housing tenants are incredibly reluctant to give up their protected tenancies.

lukieboy96

So, you have your own house but you are renting a social housing. So wrong. No wonder there are no houses for people. I think things should change. You can obviously afford your own house, then live there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

underling

I’m renting my house out and taking in lodgers to the flat i live in, so that’s creating more housing.

Tottyshouse

leveller2911 wrote: »

The only family on out development that was evicted was evicted for £5,000-00 rent arrears which is over a years rent.They were very anit social, fighting,verbally abusive, owned 2 cars driven daily with not tax,mor or insurance and the Housing Association were lacklustre at best and frankly bloody useless.

You can look at it as HA being lacklustre. Or you can look at it as they have say a million in the budget. They haven't even reached the third quarter and they are massively over budget. Do they use the money left to replace the windows in a street or do they spend it attempting (and I emphasise the word attempting) to get one tenant out?

Housing Providers want these people out. Where I worked we had panic buttons in our interview rooms as many tenants were incredibly aggressive and threatening. Some were actually banned from entering the building - the police were called on many occassions as disgrunted tenants were waiting outside to "get" Housing Officers. Unfortunately Judges who are never going to live next door to these people for some reason known only to them are reluctant to evict.

leveller2911

Tottyshouse wrote: »

You can look at it as HA being lacklustre. Or you can look at it as they have say a million in the budget. They haven't even reached the third quarter and they are massively over budget. Do they use the money left to replace the windows in a street or do they spend it attempting (and I emphasise the word attempting) to get one tenant out?


We are all aware of the changes that HA had imposed on them by Central Government particularly how their funding has changed.I'm sure you are also aware that the Government were looking very closely at 7 HA who are on the verge of going bust.

Regarding the "massively over budget " comment this may well be true but our HA is still building new developments locally to us whilst at the same time putting on hold all the current maintenance programme on their existing housing stock.

If they can't afford to maintain their existing stock why build more?.We were due to have new windows and kitchens (the existing ones are 21 years old), 12 months ago and they were cancelled so where does the money go?.So the question your asking is a red herring.

I could go on about how the HA is massively inefficient and incompetant but there is little point.

pmlindyloo

I would agree that it is extremely difficult to get council/social housing tenants out of their accommodation.

However this is mainly because eviction of these tenants makes them homeless and although this may well come under the heading of intentional homelessness it does put the landlord in a very difficult position.


This is why tenants who are socially abusive are often just moved around, much to the horror of other people.


If it was found that someone had defrauded the council by not declaring that they already had a house when they applied for council housing, unless there were extenuating circumstances the council could well evict the tenant.