Tenancy ended due to death - clarification needed

GDB2222

user1977 said:

It does seem a bit off that social landlords seem to be gaslighting the families of deceased tenants like this (you could more understand the private sector being a bit mercenary about it) - not the first time we've had a similar story.

Can you explain that, please? This seems to be a solvent estate. The estate wishes to end the tenancy, so as to avoid further outgo on rent, etc. If the estate had handed the property back full of old bits of furniture, the estate would have been liable for the housing authority's costs in clearing the property. So, where's the gaslighting?

user1977

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

It does seem a bit off that social landlords seem to be gaslighting the families of deceased tenants like this (you could more understand the private sector being a bit mercenary about it) - not the first time we've had a similar story.

Can you explain that, please? This seems to be a solvent estate. The estate wishes to end the tenancy, so as to avoid further outgo on rent, etc. If the estate had handed the property back full of old bits of furniture, the estate would have been liable for the housing authority's costs in clearing the property. So, where's the gaslighting?

I agree the estate would have been liable (as I said above). Though the OP has also said they've cleared the property.

But even if they hadn't, it doesn't mean anybody must sign an indemnity, or even that that would be a normal thing for any tenant to do at the end of a tenancy.

GDB2222

user1977 said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

It does seem a bit off that social landlords seem to be gaslighting the families of deceased tenants like this (you could more understand the private sector being a bit mercenary about it) - not the first time we've had a similar story.

Can you explain that, please? This seems to be a solvent estate. The estate wishes to end the tenancy, so as to avoid further outgo on rent, etc. If the estate had handed the property back full of old bits of furniture, the estate would have been liable for the housing authority's costs in clearing the property. So, where's the gaslighting?

I agree the estate would have been liable (as I said above). Though the OP has also said they've cleared the property.

But even if they hadn't, it doesn't mean anybody must sign an indemnity, or even that that would be a normal thing for any tenant to do at the end of a tenancy.

If someone says they are next of kin, but they cannot prove they are named as executor in the will, then they have no standing. If they then say that the tenancy is being surrendered, I can understand that the housing association will want to go along with that, as it is the practical thing to do. However, that leaves the HA wide open if the executor turns up later and complains. The indemnity provides limited protection for the HA. 

Bear in mind that the tenancy might otherwise continue until someone has standing to terminate it.

Still think the indemnity is gaslighting? 

user1977

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

It does seem a bit off that social landlords seem to be gaslighting the families of deceased tenants like this (you could more understand the private sector being a bit mercenary about it) - not the first time we've had a similar story.

Can you explain that, please? This seems to be a solvent estate. The estate wishes to end the tenancy, so as to avoid further outgo on rent, etc. If the estate had handed the property back full of old bits of furniture, the estate would have been liable for the housing authority's costs in clearing the property. So, where's the gaslighting?

I agree the estate would have been liable (as I said above). Though the OP has also said they've cleared the property.

But even if they hadn't, it doesn't mean anybody must sign an indemnity, or even that that would be a normal thing for any tenant to do at the end of a tenancy.

If someone says they are next of kin, but they cannot prove they are named as executor in the will, then they have no standing. If they then say that the tenancy is being surrendered, I can understand that the housing association will want to go along with that, as it is the practical thing to do. However, that leaves the HA wide open if the executor turns up later and complains. The indemnity provides limited protection for the HA. 

Bear in mind that the tenancy might otherwise continue until someone has standing to terminate it.

Still think the indemnity is gaslighting? 

Yes, given that the only party who might lose out from the tenancy continuing would be the estate of the deceased. Which is a non-issue from the family's point of view if the estate is insolvent (or of negligible value). So why should the landlord get the benefit of another party granting them an indemnity?

What do you think is going to happen in the OP's case, if they continue to not sign an indemnity?

RAS

Bear in mind that some social housing tenancies can be inherited. There's heaven knows how many stories on-line of people who want to inherit but don't meet the criteria, so I can imagine the provider being twitchy about one family member ending a tenancy which another might be entitled to inherit?

Downthedrain

The Notice to Quit insists that the property is cleared and is addressed 'next of kin', rather than executor. Given that I supplied the death certificate and am the informant and next of kin, and the property is required to be fully emptied by midnight 24th March, I still cannot understand why they wanted a signed indemnity to end the tenancy 2 weeks early.

They said the tenancy automatically ended when my father died. The issue appears to be just one of timescale. If they require an indemnity to 'release' the contents and end the tenancy early, why is this not required when the tenancy ends two weeks later? The wording of the indemnity suggests that it was not drawn up by a legal practitioner. More likely some office staff who thought it looked 'legal' enough.

marcia_

Downthedrain said:

The Notice to Quit insists that the property is cleared and is addressed 'next of kin', rather than executor. Given that I supplied the death certificate and am the informant and next of kin, and the property is required to be fully emptied by midnight 24th March, I still cannot understand why they wanted a signed indemnity to end the tenancy 2 weeks early.

They said the tenancy automatically ended when my father died. The issue appears to be just one of timescale. If they require an indemnity to 'release' the contents and end the tenancy early, why is this not required when the tenancy ends two weeks later? The wording of the indemnity suggests that it was not drawn up by a legal practitioner. More likely some office staff who thought it looked 'legal' enough.

Ignore them. You have no responsibility to clear it. They tried this on me and I just handed the keys to reception and walked away. 

sheramber

marcia_ said:

Downthedrain said:

The Notice to Quit insists that the property is cleared and is addressed 'next of kin', rather than executor. Given that I supplied the death certificate and am the informant and next of kin, and the property is required to be fully emptied by midnight 24th March, I still cannot understand why they wanted a signed indemnity to end the tenancy 2 weeks early.

They said the tenancy automatically ended when my father died. The issue appears to be just one of timescale. If they require an indemnity to 'release' the contents and end the tenancy early, why is this not required when the tenancy ends two weeks later? The wording of the indemnity suggests that it was not drawn up by a legal practitioner. More likely some office staff who thought it looked 'legal' enough.

Ignore them. You have no responsibility to clear it. They tried this on me and I just handed the keys to reception and walked away. 

The OP has already stated ther protprty has been emptied and cleaned.

Not evrybody wants to walk away from their parent's belongings

GDB2222

sheramber said:

marcia_ said:

Downthedrain said:

The Notice to Quit insists that the property is cleared and is addressed 'next of kin', rather than executor. Given that I supplied the death certificate and am the informant and next of kin, and the property is required to be fully emptied by midnight 24th March, I still cannot understand why they wanted a signed indemnity to end the tenancy 2 weeks early.

They said the tenancy automatically ended when my father died. The issue appears to be just one of timescale. If they require an indemnity to 'release' the contents and end the tenancy early, why is this not required when the tenancy ends two weeks later? The wording of the indemnity suggests that it was not drawn up by a legal practitioner. More likely some office staff who thought it looked 'legal' enough.

Ignore them. You have no responsibility to clear it. They tried this on me and I just handed the keys to reception and walked away. 

The OP has already stated ther protprty has been emptied and cleaned.

Not evrybody wants to walk away from their parent's belongings

It makes a huge difference whether the parent left a solvent estate, or just debts. 

If the estate was solvent, most people would want to end the tenancy as cheaply as possible. If the children clear the property, that means the estate won’t be charged hundreds of pounds for clearing it. 

The landlord can end the tenancy unilaterally with 4 weeks notice, but that would mean the estate is liable for 4 weeks rent. Only the executors have power to agree with the landlord to end the tenancy earlier than 4 weeks, so as to save a bit of that rent. 

I think the HA in this case has been pretty reasonable, albeit a bit heavy handed.