One of our tenants recently died. She took over the tenancy in 1978 on the death of her father. Does her daughter – who had lived with her for three years – have the right to succeed under the 1985 Housing Act?
There is only one statutory right of succession under the Housing Act 1985. Therefore, the daughter of the recently deceased tenant has no right to succeed, as her mother was a successor.
Some landlords do allow second successions as a matter of policy, and I have seen occasional tenancy agreements that give a contractual right to a second succession.
One other thing to check: although her mother acquired the tenancy by succession, it is possible that at some stage she was granted a new tenancy. This is, for example, often done in stock transfers.
If this has happened, the mother was no longer a successor and her daughter would be entitled to succeed.
Catherine Hand, Partner at solicitor, Jenkins & Hand
Did board officers mismanage sacking case?
I am a member of the tenants' executive committee involved in the case referred to in the Think Tank question on sacking a stock transfer housing association board member (25 April, page 32). The responses to that question rightly identified two issues.
First, the move to get the sacked member co-opted back onto the board was hasty, because at the time the board was debating a cut in membership from 18 to 15 people. Also, as the member was voted off at the annual general meeting, his potential reinstatement should have been a matter for the next annual general meeting. This could be mismanagement.
Second, there was the position of our tenant executive committee. Can I explain that the TEC came into being by two representative bodies, the tenants' forum and the tenants' federation, merging; both parties agreed a constitution and code of practice and conduct and signed up to it. After the member in question was voted off, we were informed that a complaint had been lodged about the procedure. This was forwarded to the housing association's solicitor. He consulted with both parties and his reply completely supported the committee's conduct and exonerated it of any misconduct. As a result, at the next meeting the complainants walked out after delivering their views about the tenant committee. They later sent some rather distasteful letters to the chairman of the committee and the media.
At the request of the chief executive and housing director of the association, we agreed to try mediation.
I think the board was wrong to champion the splinter group so strongly, bearing in mind that our committee requested an apology and retractions of the letters. None has been received.
I think the board officers exceeded their duties in both matters. In my opinion, the society is guilty of mismanagement and possible maladministration.
This is clearly a painful dispute, exciting strong feelings on both sides. You feel that the splinter group is in the wrong legally and procedurally. You may be right.
But the point I was trying to make in my earlier response is that this is not wholly a legal or procedural question. It is also a political one.
It is clear from both letters that the splinter group has a significant measure of support and this must weaken the tenant executive committee's claim to represent all tenants, on which its authority and legitimacy depends. So the key question should be: "How can we structure tenant representation so that as many tenants as possible have confidence in it?" Failing that, there is a danger that the split will become entrenched and the authority of the committee will be permanently damaged.
John Bryant, Policy officer, National Housing Federation
Unfortunately boards are allowed to co-opt members if they feel they can fill gaps in skills and experience. I am assuming that this board will have co-opted people on it as well as tenants who are voted on (or are accepted through a representative structure such as the tenant executive committee).
If this person, who was originally on the board as a representative from the tenant executive committee, is co-opted as an "independent", this is acceptable as long as the board members are happy with the co-option. Ultimately, the board decides these issues, so this person's reinstatement is not mismanagement.
On the question of the board championing the splinter group to the detriment of the tenant executive committee, I cannot give definite advice without more information. However, if that member was voted off democratically, the chief executive or housing staff should not try to undermine tenant members' decisions.
After all, we would be pretty appalled as a community if a local councillor who failed to be re-selected at the recent local elections, was accepted back on the council by the whim of the council leader.
Unfortunately, if the tenant executive committee is not a legally constituted committee, technically the housing association chief executive can interfere. However, if the association's own solicitor said everything was carried out correctly, it is strange that the chief executive is trying to undermine this.
Good practice should prevail, and the housing staff are doing themselves no favours with their own tenants if they are deliberately trying to undermine the membership and democratic structures of the tenant executive committee.
Jane Loftus, Information team leader for TPAS, and chair of Family Housing Association
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet