A secure tenant of the local authority I work for recently made an approach to our homeless section as homeless. He was alleging threats of violence at his property and said he was unable to return there. He and his family then spent three weeks in a bed-and-breakfast hotel and, once accepted as homeless, were placed in a property of the council's own stock. We gave him a non-secure tenancy, as we do with all our homeless. The management team say we have breached this man's human rights. But, seeing as we have no policies for management transfers or introductory tenancies in place, I don't see how we had a choice. Were we wrong to end his secure tenancy?
I presume your finding was that, because of the threats, he is unintentionally homeless. If so, the full homelessness duty is engaged and you should offer him housing that is suitable for him and his household. This would normally mean a secure tenancy for local authority housing, subject to any "starter" or introductory regime that is in place.
If you are housing him temporarily until such an offer can be made, a temporary tenancy should be used; in this particular case, a letting of local authority housing in pursuance of homelessness functions is specifically excluded from secure status.
So, I think the human rights argument is a red herring.
Also, if, because of the threats, his former property ceased to be his only or principal home even before he presented as homeless, his tenancy had already lost its secure status.
John Bryant, Policy officer, National Housing Federation
Smoke alarm repairs: the landlord's responsibility
I was interested to read that the responsibility to maintain fitted smoke alarms lies with the landlord (Think Tank, 16 January, page 34). However I note that under landlords' responsibilities to repair, it is common to exclude small repairs, such as changing fuses or replacing door handles, shower hoses and toilet seats. Why is attending to smoke alarms different from the above-mentioned items? It is well within the capability of a tenant to change a defective alarm.
There is no statutory duty to maintain smoke alarms. I feel, however, that it makes sense to do so, because maintaining the smoke alarm is at least as much in the landlord's interests as the tenant's. That is, it is primarily the tenant's problem rather than yours if, say, the toilet seat is broken, but it is very much your problem if the premises are badly damaged by fire.
John Bryant, Policy officer, National Housing Federation
PETS: be fair
When dealing with pets clauses and other clauses in tenancy agreements (Think Tank, 23 January, page 33), readers should consider the impact of the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 on tenancy agreements.
The regulations refer to potentially unreasonable prohibitions and one example given is a prohibition against pets.
Guidance published by the Office of Fair Trading states that such a term has been considered unfair in another EU state because it could, in theory, prevent a tenant keeping even a goldfish.
It may be possible for prohibitions to be considered fair if allowed only "with the landlord's consent (which will not be unreasonably withheld)".
The OFT's guidance on the regulations is available from 0870 6060321 or via the website, www.oft.gov.uk.
Georgina Savill, Solicitor, Trowers & Hamlins
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