To The Barricades!
More than 1,500 years of chanting and chronicling have left this humble scribe a tad cynical and somewhat inured to the woes of the human condition, so there was an unusual event at the Abbey yesterday, as during a snap cell inspection (think “Shawshank Redemption” meets “Cadfael”) the Abbott discovered that your author had, apart from a little contraband, a tear in his eye. He was quite shocked, and even allowed me to miss the usual 5 mile cross country run before Even Song.
The cause of this shameful lack of self discipline and breach of our Order’s strict Rule was an interview with the delightful Miss June Kilner on BBC Radio 5 Live’s “Drive” program.
Miss Kilner lives in a two bedroom Council flat in a high rise block in Brighton. To be precise, she moved in with her parents more than 47 years ago on 16th April 1963, when the flats were newly built, and has lived there ever since. She never married and never had her own family, but lived quietly and modestly with her parents. She was no workshy sponger. She worked happily at the same (unspecified) job for 39 years until, after her after her father died, her mother grew increasingly frail and she was compelled to give up her job to look after her, ultimately becoming a pensioner looking after a pensioner.
Sadly, Miss Kilner’s mother has now died, and to add to her distress, because of a legal quirk she now faces eviction. Under the Housing Act 1985 a council tenancy can only be passed on by succession on death once. The tenancy was originally in the joint names of Miss Kilner’s father and mother. When her father died the benefit of the tenancy passed automatically to her mother, thus using up the one allowed succession. Upon her mother’s death the tenancy ended, leaving Miss Kilner facing eviction.
Of course there is a good reason for the rule, namely to stop a council tenancy being tied up for generations in the same family when there may be more needy and deserving potential tenants. And one could, if one wished, construct the case that Miss Kilner has had a good run, and should jolly well look after herself.
However, I defy anyone not to listen to her interview and not feel moved at the plight of this now elderly woman, as well as both her distress and dignity in the face of being evicted from the home she has lived in for her entire adult life, with all the memories that go with it. It is available via the BBCi player or Radio 5 Live website in the “Drive” program for 30/07/2010 at 1 hour 26 minutes. Hopefully you will find a direct link to the appropriate page here:
The Council apparently feels its hands are tied in this situation, and, according to the law, Miss Kilner has to go. Balderdash! (I might use stronger language, but not here).
There is a time for rules, and a time when the rule book should be consigned firmly to the bonfire. It does not need anything particularly dramatic to remedy this situation. It needs a sensible course of looking the other way. Looking the other way is something which Councils and Governments do all the time when it suits them. And who would complain? Some whinging teenager with no job and an ASBO? So? File the complaint where it belongs – in the bin.
Law which is not tempered by mercy and good judgement is no law, just servitude. In this country (I mean Britain) government of all degrees has become hide bound by rules and “process”, endlessly concerned with the threat of litigation, and blind to the reality of the lives of its decent citizens. Lawyers and Judges do not help.
So far my internet researches have revealed no more of Miss Kilner’s story, but this is one I am not going to let drop. It is time to stand up for someone who has led a quite, decent, modest life. An “ordinary” person – meaning a person who is extra ordinary, and worth a million Simon Callows, X Factor wannabees, reality TV lunatics, self regarding luvvies, bonus collecting apparatchiks, or specious and mendacious politicians.
To the barricades!
Gildas the Monk
August 10, 2010 at 14:37
-
Hmmmm!
- August 2, 2010 at 22:42
-
“Woman on a Raft (9:36)”, – Nice one. June should definitely pursue along
these lines.
- August 2, 2010 at 12:09
-
Dear WOAR
I am clearly going to have to a proper look at this now –
thanks for the links
Looks like it’s time for a proper “Opinion”
Gildas
the Monk
- August 2, 2010 at 17:30
-
Why change The Law in 1985 unless there was something to be gained by
changing it?
As I understood The law in those days, and believe me, I did, any child
of the family who had lived permanently at the premises for longer than two
years before the death of the Tenant, was entitled to take over The Tenancy.
Many times I saw it happen.
They cannot take away this right if the child
was in permanent residence before they changed the Law in 1985.
Incidentally, I was employed by Landlords for some twenty years during
the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s, and so my opinion is entirely
unbiased.
-
August 1, 2010 at 10:24
-
And where is her MP in all this?
- August 1, 2010 at 07:53
-
Sorry if I am belabouring the point, but the article states that it was a
Joint Tenancy, therefor it didn’t pass to anyone when Miss Kilner’s father
died as Mrs. Kilner’s name will already have been on The Rent Book.
- August 1, 2010 at 12:28
-
Well spotted. Again, because it is the only thing which got past
Gildas:
The tenancy was originally in the joint names of Miss
Kilner
- August 1, 2010 at 16:03
-
Dear Woman on a Raft
You raise an interesting point. I will listen
again to exactly what is said in the interview, and make some more checks
elsewhere if I can, and check exactly what the position was. I had made
the swift assumption that the effect of the survivorship was to effect a
deemed transfer, but I should have spotted that, and thought about it
more, but I was too busy ranting!
I am interested in this case, and I
will make further inquiries on the above.
Thanks for the Help
- August 1, 2010 at 16:18
-
Dear Woman on a Raft (again)
I have checked the interview again, and
it seems plain that there was a joint tenancy. However, a quick bit of
research indicates that the problem arises by virtue section 88(1)(b) of
the Housing Act 1985, which in effect deems the the vesting of title in
the surviving spouse to be a succession of the tenancy within the meaning
of the Act, and only one succession is allowed. I will double check when I
have a moment.
Many thanks again
Gildas the Monk
-
August 1, 2010 at 19:28
-
They changed the Act in 1985. How can they deprive tenants of rights
that were afforded in 196?. The 1985 Act should only apply to Joint
Tenancies granted after that date. Or so I would argue.
-
August 1, 2010 at 20:11
-
Another good point which I shall take on board!
By the way,
after a bit of jabbing, the Brighton Argus will be running the story
tomorrow or Tuesday (or so they tell me)
Gildas the Monk
- August 2, 2010 at
09:36
-
The HA85 s.88(1)(b) defines the joint tenancy survivor as a
successor. (This is argued to be allowable because a statutory tenancy
is a right to occupy, distinguished from a tenancy which involves a
right to occupy and dispose of the tenancy under normal land law such
as leasehold. )
The HA85 s.87 , which applies to these properties,
then stipulates that a family member cannot qualify for the tenancy if
the sole tenant is defined as a successor.
If the HA85 was the end of it, the considerations only recently by
Lord Justice Laws in
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Hickin [2010]
EWCA Civ 868 (27 July 2010)
would end Ms Kilner’s tenancy.
However, that’s not the end of it because Ms Kilner can’t be the
only person in this situation. There’s something wonky if the child of
a married couple is not entitled to tenancy by successorship whereas
the child of a single parent would be.
The Housing Act 1988 Schedule 4, part 1, paragraph 6,
modifies the Rent Act 1977 in apparent contradiction of this, but
it may depend on the status of the tenancy. This applies to Statutory
Tenancies.
6 For paragraph 6 there shall be substituted the following
paragraph
- August 1, 2010 at 02:15
-
Look, this is an easy problem to solve. If we all bung in a fiver each we
can raise a fund large enough for this poor lady to buy a fake Romanian
passport. She can then successfully claim, as an immigrant, to live in a
million pound house, paid for by housing benefit.
Simples.
- July 31, 2010 at 23:24
-
Old Holborn makes the point very well that unless you provide for yourself
you will be subjected to the whims of petty bureaucracy.
There is no use
pleading for common sense to prevail.
BTW is this not the Green party
constituency, where is their commentary on this issue?
- July
31, 2010 at 21:36
-
A personal tale: Having retired early to look after my mother who was
ailing, when the time came where I could no longer cater for her ‘personal’
needs I had to allow her to go to a care home. The housing association would
not allow me to continue the tenancy as I was not her partner nor spouse,
which then made me homeless as I had given up my flat to move in with her. For
ten days I then ‘lived’ in my car until the same housing association offered
me another flat!
Don’t you just love bureaucracy?
- July 31, 2010 at 21:21
-
This sounds like an appalling situation! Unless there are details we don’t
know then common sense and common decency would say she should be allowed to
stay. In any case the council would have duty to house her if she were to be
evicted, and a 60s high rise flat is surely not one of their sought after
types of property. So why can’t they simply give her a new tenancy
agreement?
- July 31, 2010 at 20:14
-
No. It’s because you play modestly against type (interesting); have no ego,
and have an instinctive understanding of good and bad and difference between
the same.
Presumption, I know.
-
July 31, 2010 at 20:24
-
Ok then. But don’t tell Mr Smudd.
-
July 31, 2010 at 19:43
-
Um … Gildas, did you mean Simon Cowell rather than Simon Callow
(Shakespearian actor and in Four Weddings and a Funeral)?
- July 31, 2010 at 19:58
-
Erm..no (cough) Callow..erm (cough splutter) – he’s as bad as all the
rest (apart from the talent bit) and (er cough)
Well yes. OK.
By the
way Gloria, will you marry me?
Gildas
-
July 31, 2010 at 20:01
-
Is it my girlish good looks?
- July 31, 2010 at 18:17
-
My grandmother always used to tell me that rules were for the guidance of
the wise and for fools to follow, unfortunately over the last couple of
decades it seems that more and more of those who are in positions of authority
fall in to the latter group.
-
July 31, 2010 at 23:31
-
Same principle will lead to a pay-off for Ian Huntley
- July 31, 2010 at 18:14
-
Allow me to emerge from the woodpile
She had an entire lifetime to acquire property and secure her own future.
As well over 90% of the population of the planet manages.
Her choices. Her consequences.
- July 31, 2010 at 18:27
-
I see the the argument, OH, and I am a regular reader of your excellent
blog, and indeed I even follow you on Twitter!
But on thus, I beg most
respectfully beg to differ
There are times when logic. and compassion do
not coincide.
However, thanks for taking the time to read, and
comment.
Gildas the Monk
-
July 31, 2010 at 19:13
-
But as it’s a Council property, they have to let it to someone.
She’s as worthy a candidate as anyone. Note the adjective ‘worthy’.
- July 31, 2010 at 20:09
-
Someone had to look after her mother. Isn’t that an extenuating
circumstance?
And surely something can be done with the fact that she has
live there for so long. Might the original tenancy have been a joint one? If
this was the case it wouldn’t have passed to anyone on the death of her
father.
-
August 1, 2010 at 00:57
-
Steady on OH, Aristotle has often been quoted as saying you can judge a
nation by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens, and he was not
wrong.
BTW Good post Gildas,
BTWBTW thank you whoever recommended breast of
lamb Ste M
- July 31, 2010 at 18:03
-
Revolting jobsworthitis. An elderly woman with no children (who might claim
the tenancy on her death), recently bereaved, already having saved the state a
great deal of money from having to care for her mother, I fear she would be
deemed to have made herself intentionally homeless by not making alternative
arrangments and therefore eligible only for B&B accommodation or some such
horror.
Compassion and commonsense have left the building. Or country.
- July 31,
2010 at 17:53
-
This is utterly barmy. The council has discretion as to who it lets it’s
properties to. While the family “succession” rule might apply in the great
majority of cases for obvious reasons, in difficult ones the council ought to
have the capability to review specific individual cases on appeal or on
referral. In any case it is evident that the “succession” issue does not arise
in further generations.
- July 31, 2010 at 17:40
-
This is something that just a few years ago would be resolved with
sympathy, discretion and common sense. None of which are applied in this
grotty Country any more.
- July 31, 2010 at 17:15
-
It just goes to underline the old military saying ‘Rules are for the strict
obedience of fools and the guidance of wiser men’ is as true today as it ever
was.
- July 31, 2010 at 17:11
-
“………a council tenancy can only be passed on by succession on death once.
”
Surely, there’s nothing to stop them: Accepting that the tenancy can only
be passed on by succession once; AND, then simply giving her a new tenancy for
the same flat? i.e. as a Social Services decision, not, as a legal
obligation.
- July 31, 2010 at 17:22
-
Indeed, why not. They would have to rehouse her somewhere else
anyway.
Or are they worried about her now spare bedroom. They wouldn’t
get many immigrants in there.
- July
31, 2010 at 17:36
-
No doubt they are worried about setting a precedent, but since they
will have to house her anyway, it seems pointless to make her move.
But then, why should they worry. We don’t directly elect them, after
all.
-
July 31, 2010 at 17:41
-
I agree Joe Public; I have not had the chance to look at the specific
legal issues yet, but the Council appear to be taking the view that
under the legislation they must evict. I shall, however, do so.
One
would have thought a dose of common sense and compassion would have
sorted this, but these appear to be in short supply at the moment.
G
the M
{ 36 comments }