I am a member of a very small housing cooperative. We used to have just three houses, but then the short-term let ended on one house. Most of the people in the house left when asked but two remained living there and other new people have moved in that we don't know. Obviously, we aren't asking them for rent as we are no longer managing the property, but they are not paying rent to the council or to anyone else either, apparently because no one has asked them for any money. However they have made no "official" declaration of squatting, such as putting a notice in the window. I am worried the remaining eight co-op members will be held responsible for the cost of evicting them or for the unpaid rent – and we don't have much money.
You need to talk to the organisation on whose behalf you were managing the property and agree what to do about it.
Your management agreement probably required you to return the property vacant and in good condition and if so you may well have a liability since obviously you failed to do this.
John Bryant, Policy officer, National Housing Federation
If there was a new implied tenancy between the council and the co-op (if the council in some way recognised them, for instance by accepting rent or writing to them as though they were its tenants) or a tenancy at will could be implied, then the co-op will remain liable to the council in terms of giving vacant possession.
If, however, the let came to an end and nothing more happened, then the co-op has no further interest in the property under which it could bring possession proceedings. The council would have to do so, but could look to the co-op for the costs of doing so on the basis that you breached the terms of the short-term let by not giving vacant possession when it expired. You should contact the council to discuss the position.
Nick Billingham, Partner and head of housing management litigation at law firm Devonshires
Pet peeves
We are renewing our tenancy agreements and staff are divided over the issue of pets. Some say we should abandon the specific pets clause arguing that it should be OK for tenants to keep pets as long as they don't cause a nuisance. They say the aspects of the agreement that cover nuisance behaviour should be enough to deal with problem pets, and we should only restrict the ownership of exotic pets. Others feel there should still be a specific reference to all pets in the agreement. We would be interested to know what the panel thinks.
It's unlikely the general nuisance clause in the tenancy will be widely enough drawn to cover pets. It would normally cover the behaviour of the tenant and any members of his/her household or invited visitors. Pets would not be construed as members of the household.
It would be advisable to have a separate clause covering pets, whether it restricts the keeping of pets by requiring the landlord's permission or it allows pets but only if they are kept under control and/or do not cause a nuisance.
Nick Billingham, Partner and head of housing management litigation at law firm Devonshires
You should say what you mean. Do not say "no pets" unless you really mean not even a goldfish. If you mean "no pets likely to damage the property or interfere with the quiet enjoyment of other residents", that is what the agreement should say.
As for "exotic pets", I suggest a pet should not be seen as a problem merely because it is unusual; the test should be whether it is likely to interfere with the legitimate concerns of the landlord or other residents.
John Bryant, Policy officer, National Housing Federation
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
If you have a housing problem, or a better answer, write in confidence to:
THINK TANK
Housing Today
7th floor, Anchorage House
2 Clove Crescent
London
E14 2BE
Or email HTletters@buildergroup.co.uk
No comments yet