Think tank

A tragedy of errors

I have been on the transfer list for two years and have experienced several problems with it. First it took more than four months to get on the list because, I was told, I gave them the short birth certificate for my daughter rather than the long version, though I think they should have noticed this when I handed it into their office. Then, when I gave birth to my second daughter and made them aware of this with a copy of her long birth certificate, they lost this and did not add her for about another five months after I complained.

When I complained about this issue, I was told my application had been suspended, probably due to my medical assessment.

But a discussion with the woman I was dealing with revealed that they had received the assessment and should have reinstated the application.

I want to know if there is anything I can do, following all these difficulties and delays, to help me get my transfer sooner.

I am currently six months pregnant so if I do not get moved soon there will be four of us in a one-bedroom flat.

Is there any legal action I can take?

In reality this oversight may not in fact delay your transfer application. It is difficult to comment without knowing the housing situation of the area in which you live. But in a high-demand area the delays experienced, although frustrating, will not necessarily make any difference to your waiting time.

If nothing else, you should have your case looked at and corrected promptly. My advice would be to get an appointment to discuss your application with the relevant person who would explain how your application will be affected by all the twists and turns, as well as the addition of another child, and also give you some idea of waiting times for your area.

You should be prepared to consider widening your area of choice, and accepting a housing association nomination as well as council accommodation to speed up your waiting time. Nick Murphy

To ask for a long instead of a short birth certificate seems, on the face of it, an unjustifiably petty bureaucratic requirement. That is compounded by the fact that medical and other evidence may have been lost or unduly disregarded. It is quite possible that, as a result, this transfer application may have been given insufficient priority.

Moreover, the family may have missed its turn for the allocation of a suitable home, which might have become available while the application was being assessed wrongly.

The household may be statutorily overcrowded already; if not, with the birth of a new child it is likely to be – and, arguably, the landlord would be responsible for that as well if no action is taken promptly.

Whether or not the problem is resolved now by a transfer to suitable housing, based on the information provided there are grounds for a complaint either to the local government ombudsman if the landlord is a local authority or to the housing ombudsman if it is a registered social landlord. Legal action is possible in the county court but it is unlikely to resolve what seems to be systemic maladministration. So, regardless of

the outcome of this case, other applicants may well experience similar shortcomings if the landlord’s rehousing policies and practices are not the subject of a more thorough review. Dr Mike Biles

This seems to be a complaint that the local government ombudsman could look at.

The household may be statutorily overcrowded already and, whether or not the problem gets resolved, there could be grounds for a complaint to the ombudsman

We would need to examine whether the council’s mistakes in the past had a lasting effect on your chances of getting rehoused.

A lot of this would depend on how the council’s transfer scheme works. If the date of registration is a significant factor, we at the local government ombudsman would at least want that put right. We would also want to be sure that the council had taken all relevant factors into account, including the overcrowding and any medical problems. This may not mean that you get a transfer, though. A lot of councils have so many transfer applications that the chances of a move are slim.

All we can do is make sure that your needs are correctly assessed and recorded. Tony Redmond

It is hard to give a specific answer without more details, but I will try in very general terms. Housing authorities are required to prioritise social housing to those in greatest housing need. Existing tenants wanting a transfer have to be considered alongside new housing applicants.

There is a lot of regulation in relation to housing allocations and priority points or bandings are allocated to applicants so that those with greatest need are on top of the allocation list.

Medical problems and statutory overcrowding are included as priorities.

Many landlords are now changing to choice-based lettings schemes, where vacancies are advertised, but then still allocated according to priority need.

If your landlord is a council you should check if this type of system is being used and start applying via the advertisements.

You should try to sort out the bad customer service you have received by making a formal complaint. This might then boost your “points” because time lost through bad administration could be reinstated. Jane Loftus

Am I a survivor?

I am confused about the law surrounding succession. In “The Inheritors” (12 November 2004, page 40), Nick Billingham replied that where one of two joint tenants dies, the remaining tenant becomes sole tenant by survivorship not succession. Am I correct in thinking that he is implying that this does not count as a succession for purposes of the Housing Act? This seems to contradict other advice given before regarding succession.

It is worth reminding people of the relevant part of the original question and answer that was as follows. Question: If a joint tenancy has been created and one tenant dies but the other continues the tenancy through succession, are they liable for arrears accrued from the beginning of the tenancy? Answer: Where one of two joint tenants dies, the remaining tenant becomes a sole tenant by “survivorship”, not “succession”. Because joint tenants are jointly liable for arrears, they will be liable for arrears still owing.

In answer to the latest question, no, I was not implying that survivorship did not count as a succession. It does. But survivorship is not the same as succession. As the original question and answer confirmed, a “surviving” joint tenant is responsible for any rent arrears outstanding on the death of their joint tenant, whereas arrears owed by a deceased sole tenant become a liability on their estate, rather than on any successor.

So it’s worth making the legal distinction between survivorship and succession, though, to prevent a statutory succession in the future, survivorship does count as a succession in the Housing Acts. Nick Billingham