Housing Association Threatening Injunction

da_rule

The tenancy agreement probably won't say anything as clear as "not to keep too much stuff in the property". There are however a number of boilerplate clauses that should be in the tenancy that you are arguably in breach of:

1) Not to do anything that could cause damage to the building/the property/neighbouring properties - they could argue that the way you are storing items increases the risk of fire/increases the speed at which fire would spread.

2) Not to do anything that would cause the landlords insurance to became void or the premium to increase - again, a heightened fire risk may cause either of these to happen.

3) Not to run a business from the property - you have admitted that you make an income from this (which I assume you are declaring if you need to).

4) Not to do anything that could be deemed to be antisocial or that could cause an annoyance/inconvenience to neighbours/the landlord - again, increasing the risk of damage to neighbouring properties/the building could fall into this.

5) Not to do anything that could constitute a criminal offence - this one is a bit of a long shot, but under the Housing Act 2004 there are criminal sanctions that can be taken for having hazardous properties. This legislation allows local authorities to issue enforcement notices and eventually prosecute. Also, if you are making an income and not properly declaring it there could be other offences.

If the tenancy agreement has been drafted well then these should be in the agreement. Even if they're not there is an argument that some, if not all, of them should be implied terms.

You have obviously had a fair amount of time to sort this out. It is probably time to just buckle down and get the stuff gone, as hard as that may be. Make a few phone calls to local schools/community clubs/charities etc to see if they can come and take some away (at least you're helping do some good then).

As gets said on this forum quite a bit (normally about Right to Buy), you have a secured tenancy. This is a bit like gold dust. Do you really want to risk it over a few boxes of craft materials? I know that sounds harsh, but at the end of the day it is only stuff and you are risking your home. What will be worse is that if you force the Housing Association to go through with their threat you could be deemed to have made yourself intentionally homeless so you and your son will be very low on the list when it comes to being rehoused.

I'm sorry if this post seems overly negative/harsh, but you still seem to be trying to deal with outlying issues like getting the fire service involved (which probably wouldn't help as they are likely to go to the Local Authority if they find a fire risk and the Local Authority then have a statutory obligation to act), and trying to swap homes. While the underlying issue, the sheer amount of stuff you have in the property, remains unsolved. Just deal with the issue and move on.

G_M

I was deliberately vague in my early reply. Having read your subsequent posts, it now seems pretty clear that you need to take action, decrease and declutter the property.

And then invite the manager back.

Given the potential for legal action to start at any time, this is urgent.

I agree with others that a specific clause in the tenancy agreement is not required. da_rule lists some typical clauses which, if included in your TA, could be used against you.

But even if such clauses are absent, there is an implied clause in every tenancy agreement that the tenant will act 'in a tenant-like manner'.

Like others, I strongly suspect fire risk is behind the HA's concerns, and creating a fire risk within your property would clearly contravene your obligation to act 'in a tenant-like manner'.

Yes, an injunction forcing you to clear the property could be sought from a court, as could eviction, if only to protect other neighbouring tenants.

I'm afraid that based on your description in your posts here, I would consider you a 'hoarder'. I'm not a professional, so that's simply a personal, amateur opinion, & doubtless you will again deny this. So be it. But you may wish try & to take a hard, objective look at your own living arrangements.

Now, in practical terms, what can you do, that is fast?

* you say you cannot get a shed outside
* you have no car, rarely go out, so cannot easily rent a lock-up to move the boxes to. But you may wish to seriously re-consider this. Hire a man/van for half a day and move 3/4s of those boxes out
* ebay will take too long. Forget that
* Look for a local crafts fair ( they take place in the summer) and take all those boxes to one to sell off. Cheap, so as to be sure they sell. Again, hire a van/man to get them there if you have to
* I have a friend who is into crafts. I'm sure she would hhappily takee some of those boxes off your hands if the price was attractive, and wwould collect. I'm not suggesting you PM me to arrange this - I'm saying there will be people out there who will do this if you advertise in the right place
* put them on freecycle. And/or advertise them either free or as a cheap job-lot in local classifieds or Loot, or other specialist online sites
* look for local council craft courses and offer to sell /give away to the tutors and/or students
* as a last resort, man/van to the local tip

Yes. The tip. Waste of money I know, plus heart-wrenching as I'm sure you're attached to this stuff. But it (or a large percentage of it) has to go.

45002

Rambosmum wrote:

HA's can and do evict on excessive content of properties. What they are doing with you is giving you opportunity to fix it before going for the injunction. I suspect after Grenfell, it'll easier to get such injunctions too, and that HAs will act faster than they may have previously.

Rambosmum

Under which housing act and under what "grounds" would be used by a HA for a out right possession order for excessive content of properties

Could you provide some links to successfully cases where a possession orders/ injunctions has been granted to a HA excessive content of properties.

Thank you ....




.

G_M

I imagine S8 grounds 12,13 or 14?

Ground 12

Any obligation of the tenancy (other than one related to the payment of rent) has been broken or not performed.

Ground 13

The condition of the dwelling-house or any of the common parts has deteriorated owing to acts of waste by, or the neglect or default of, the tenant or any other person residing in the dwelling-house and, in the case of an act of waste by, or the neglect or default of, a person lodging with the tenant or a sub-tenant of his, the tenant has not taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant.

For the purposes of this ground, “common parts” means any part of a building comprising the dwelling-house and any other premises which the tenant is entitled under the terms of the tenancy to use in common with the occupiers of other dwelling-houses in which the landlord has an estate or interest.

Ground 14

[F19The tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house—

(a)has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality,

[F20(aa)has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord of the dwelling-house, or a person employed (whether or not by the landlord) in connection with the exercise of the landlord's housing management functions, and that is directly or indirectly related to or affects those functions,] or ......

I doubt 'excessive contents' would be cited - though that may be offered as evidence for whichever ground were relied on.

Cheeky_Monkey

OP - maybe if you didn't spend hours on the internet arguing the t*ss about whether you can or can't be evicted, you would have more time to sort out/dispose of all your stuff - just a thought!

Rambosmum

45002 wrote: »

Rambosmum

Under which housing act and under what "grounds" would be used by a HA for a out right possession order for excessive content of properties

Could you provide some links to successfully cases where a possession orders/ injunctions has been granted to a HA excessive content of properties.

Thank you ....




.

I can't provide you with links however, from my own, professional experience -

tenant A - elderly lady, physically well but mentally ill, hoarded continence pads (new, in packet) HA (can't name as I still work for the LA) got an injunction to complete a clean up, went in to the property and removed ALL 'excess' continence products and cleaned the property.

Tenant B - hoarded anything and everything (traditional hoarder) HA got an injunction to clear the property, did so, 12 months later tenant had filled the home again, second injunction sought and gained, home cleared again, 12 months later same again, 4th year now and HA are going for a possession order. Unlikely to get as tenant has MH difficulties and is receiving treatment.

Tenant C physically and mentally well, hoards clothes, supposedly to sell but never get sold, HA got possession order as tenant is in no way vulnerable. I completed the assessment to ascertain if they had needs under either the Care Act or Mental Health Act before possession was granted.

Tenant D - ongoing case, tenant has substance misuse issues and dementia, 3 clear ups have taken place, eviction currently being sought. Likely to get as 10th floor of block of flats and a smoker, home full of papers. Hearing in 2ish weeks.

Tenant E, home full of bags of clothes, soft furnishings, 'excess' furniture. Had LD and 3 children. Support from social services (adults and children's) and MH services. Injunction for clean up gained.

Tenant F, 2 adults, one child, Home full of hoarded items, clothes, papers, toys, books, kitchen items. traditional hoarding. Eviction sought after many warnings and a skip provided by the HA, family moved before hearing.

I've also worked with several tenants who gave permission for a clean up (offered as physically unable to sort it themselves) before an injunction was needed.

HAs are hot on this at the moment. A number of the homes I've worked in were as clean as they can be with so many items so it wasn't vermin or dirt.

Some are granted on ASB terms, others on fire risk. Most get an assessment by FS prior to injunction and several opportunities to clear it themselves. The clean up crews don't sort through things so people lost lots of important possessions.

EDIT: I only get to work with those who are 'vulnerable' or require assessing under the Care Act.

gettingtheresometime

:beer:

PinkMohawk wrote: »

Grenfell was the Council's fault, not the tenants'.
.

Well I think that's for the public inquiry to determine don't you?

PinkMohawk

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

:beer:

Well I think that's for the public inquiry to determine don't you?

I haven't been paying an awful lot of attention to sources, admittedly, but I was sure it was common knowledge that the correct cladding was not used in the structure of the building, that there was no sprinkler system, and the source of the fire was a faulty washing machine?

My comment was casually made by putting those things together and using them in general conversation, not as any kind of legal statement or proclamation that I am the be all and end all of everything...

PinkMohawk

Thanx for your helpful comments everyone.

Will chew things over while I get back to decluttering and organising tomorrow.

G_M

PinkMohawk wrote: »

I haven't been paying an awful lot of attention to sources, admittedly, but I was sure it was common knowledge that the correct cladding was not used in the structure of the building, that there was no sprinkler system, and the source of the fire was a faulty washing machine?

My comment was casually made by putting those things together and using them in general conversation, not as any kind of legal statement or proclamation that I am the be all and end all of everything...

As you say, it appears the fire was started by something (in this case a faulty washing machine) within a tenant's flat. The severity of the fire was, probably, exacerbated by the cladding.

It is the combination of these (and other) factors that led tto the tragic results we all know about.

So it is understandable that councils and HAs would now be doing all they can to eradicate risks at each point - not just tower block cladding, but factors witthin individual flats as well.