Council house tenancy inheritance

[LemonadeFromLemons]

Inspired by another thread about inherited tenancies

I know a couple who are going to inherit a council house tenancy, I really don’t think they should be able to though. So the facts are:

• elderly woman lives alone in council house and has been given an end of life diagnosis.
• Her adult son hadn’t lived there since he was a child (about thirty years ago)
• Son and his wife moved in with his mother and sell the house they’d been living in (broke even due to negative equity)
• Son and wife earn £70k between them (which is above the median household income of the area, although no savings) and have one young teenage child
• Son has been given the go ahead by the council to say he will inherit the tenancy when his mother passes.

It’s so wrong. So many other people who didn’t make themselves intentionally homeless who needed that house.

Just to be clear I don’t begrudge them doing it, I just don’t think it should be allowed.

YABU it should be allowed
YANBU it shouldn’t be allowed

And when looking at legal successions the income wouldn’t apply. When looking at contractual or a discretionary award of a tenancy then they would have to meet the councils allocation policy of social housing ( think is it household income below £60000 and capital assets less than 50k)

I know of someone who tried this - hadn't lived there for decades, barely visited but moved in (3 bed house) when his mum became ill and tried to secure the tenancy (in order to buy cheaply according to neighbours) when she died almost a year later. He was refused & thrown out.

Things must have changed. When my MIL died the nephew who had been living there for 2 years wasnt allowed t o inherit the tenancy. Perhaps it depends on the council concerned

@Babyroobs, you're right. She told them she'd been living with her mum when she wasn't.

This was well over 10 years ago. She'd probably be chased now. As it is she's living in a much bigger house She'd have had if she hadn't got hold of a council house tenancy.

The whole system is rotten to the core.

People are aggrieved at the wrong people. It's the system that's broken. Council & HA housing is a scarce resource. We need more social housing.

They can buy it and (then sell it later) under Right to Buy after a few years!

I know of a similar situation where the married daughter in the 50's sold her house and moved into mother's council house. To me it's just plain wrong and blocking a house for another needy candidate.
With rules allowing this then there's little wonder there's a housing shortage.
Personally I think everyone's situation should be reassesed every 10years so that existing housing stock is out to its best use allowing the most occupancy.
Surely this is best for both, tennants, those seeking accommodation and the tax payer.
Such misuse of assets is appalling.

If the elderly lady has an end of life diagnosis , are they moving in as Full Time Carers ?

The problem is the lack of social housing, not these individuals

This, 100%. And selling a house (even in negative equity) to try to succeed the tenancy is a highly risky move.

And no it isn't really 'fair as such but then again, neither is life.

The whole rules around tenancy and council houses is so messed up. We have enough housing problems here without adding to them by CFkery like this.

Personally I think everyone's situation should be reassesed every 10years so that existing housing stock is out to its best use allowing the most occupancy

This IS what generally happens with newer council and HA tenancies, and it's usually at least every 5 years, not 10. There is also bedroom tax to discourage under occupancy (except for the elderly).

However, councils will generally have to adhere to the tenant rights listed in much older tenancies, although this will happen less and less since SH tenancy conditions were tweaked in accordance with the lack of SH.

Personally I think everyone's situation should be reassesed every 10years so that existing housing stock is out to its best use allowing the most occupancy

No, this is a terrible idea. This leads to ghettos where only the most impoverished or socially disadvantaged live. It also give people a lack of incentive to work (or declare work), if they'll lose their house.

If you allow people to retain their house as they improve their lot, it's more likely to create thriving communities. (Not that any political party seems to give a stuff about communities any more).

We have very wierd attitudes to homes in this country, partly stemming from the way they're treated as an investment and not a human right.

The lack of housing in this country exists because of deliberate political meddling. It's not an unsolvable problem, people don't need to lose their homes as soon as they are on their uppers.

We could solve the problem by making sure there was enough social housing to meet the need. But this government don't WANT to and most people have been trained to think this would be a bad idea when in fact secure, decent, affordibly priced social housing for those who want it would solve a whole host of problems in this coutry.

On top of the social housing shortage policy, people gaining from living with, and often caring for, elderly parents is a social good as well. When they pass away is it really fair to make the caring child homeless? Note that this person will have to pay rent, they aren’t getting the house for free.

That’s a cheeky way to do it. The system needs a complete overhaul and the genuine people that deserve a house should be the ones that get them. It’s a joke.

And what to people propose the changes should be to boot someone out of their house after 5-10 years?

I live in LA housing. I am a loan parent to one child. I work full time and bust my ass off to grow a career whilst raising a child on my own. So now what, once I reach a earning threshold we should become homeless (again)?

Because great, his father made us homeless first and now my want to have a purposeful career and a ok wage is another reason to make my son homeless?

I'm confused...

@TheSkatesOfCoachBombay

And what to people propose the changes should be to boot someone out of their house after 5-10 years?

I live in LA housing. I am a loan parent to one child. I work full time and bust my ass off to grow a career whilst raising a child on my own. So now what, once I reach a earning threshold we should become homeless (again)?

Because great, his father made us homeless first and now my want to have a purposeful career and a ok wage is another reason to make my son homeless?

I'm confused...

Exactly. It's totally shortsighted and there's no need for it.

People really don't seem to understand that the scarcity in social housing is deliberate, is a policy that doesn't have our best interests at heart and it doesn't need to be this way.

I live in LA housing. I am a loan parent to one child. I work full time and bust my ass off to grow a career whilst raising a child on my own. So now what, once I reach a earning threshold we should become homeless (again)?

I'm in a similar situation but with 3 DC. I hear what you're saying and how tenancy reviews could discourage tenants from improving their financial situation. BUT - if you (or me) were ever in a situation to buy then surely that would be the decent thing to do, given that it could then be used for the people currently in the situation we were in?

Likewise if the DC's leave and the property becomes too big for our needs, we should downsize if given the opportunity?

BUT - if you (or me) were ever in a situation to buy then surely that would be the decent thing to do, given that it could then be used for the people currently in the situation we were in?

No, again the problem is a lack of supply.

If social housing wasn't so scarce, the right thing to do would be to pay rent out of your wages for as long as you wanted to live there. This is what builds strong communities.

Or go buy a house if you wanted to.

And for the government to continue to build/buy social housing according to need.

Instead, we have a ridiculous system that is stacked against most people, wastes tax payers money syphoning off £millions to private landlords, investors and those with property portfolios.

It shouldn’t be allowed but technically it is (especially on old tenancies). My next door neighbour did this. The rules stated (at the time in the 90’s) that tenancy could be passed over once normally this was from husband to wife or vice versa. Next door neighbours son moved his family into his mum and dad house when the dad was was on his last legs. When he died they made the tenancy pass to the son instead of his mum who was still living.

My mum died a year or two later and we were told that because the tenancy has passed from my mum and dad to just my dad there would be no further passing on of the tenancy. My mum died when I was 18 and I still lived at home as it was still at school. My brother was still a child. If my dad had died in the next few years me and my brother we would have been homeless as the council would not have allowed the tenancy to pass to me. However, next door son then bought the house for a pittance as he was now on the tenancy.

@Shanghaisprize

I live in LA housing. I am a loan parent to one child. I work full time and bust my ass off to grow a career whilst raising a child on my own. So now what, once I reach a earning threshold we should become homeless (again)?

I'm in a similar situation but with 3 DC. I hear what you're saying and how tenancy reviews could discourage tenants from improving their financial situation. BUT - if you (or me) were ever in a situation to buy then surely that would be the decent thing to do, given that it could then be used for the people currently in the situation we were in?

Likewise if the DC's leave and the property becomes too big for our needs, we should downsize if given the opportunity?

I'll never be in a position to buy and that's not connected to my current wage it's to do with credit reference agencies thanks to the ex.

Downsize yes I would, but then you only get 90 points to downsize so even if you wanted to do it tomorrow, you'll probably have to wait a fair few years for that to happen. Which isn't my fault but everyone will be saying "coach doesn't need a 2 bed she should move out" well yes I'm waiting to 🤷🏻‍♀️

Downsize yes I would, but then you only get 90 points to downsize so even if you wanted to do it tomorrow, you'll probably have to wait a fair few years for that to happen. Which isn't my fault but everyone will be saying "coach doesn't need a 2 bed she should move out" well yes I'm waiting to

I know my HA allows one unoccupied bedroom, if yours has a similar policy then maybe you'll be OK if you have a 2 bed property?

Agree that downsizing should be easier and more incentivised than it currently is.

Very wrong and sadly, nothing new.

That's how council homes work OP lots of people do it.