Agenda item

This briefing provides an update to the Commission on Leicester City Council’s succession, change of name and sole to joint and joint to sole policies and gives an overview of the legislation which needs to be followed.

The Director of Housing submitted a report to set out Leicester City Council’s succession policy and to give an overview of the legislation that undergirds this policy.

It was noted that:

·       Succession occurred when a qualified individual took over the tenancy of a deceased tenant. This process did not require permission from the council or a formal application.

·       Under the 1985 Housing Act, family members who had resided in the property for at least 12 months before the tenant’s death were entitled to succession. However, the Localism Act 2012 amended this provision, limiting automatic succession rights to spouses or partners only.

·       The council’s policy on succession had not been reviewed since 2020 due to the pandemic and other factors. Therefore, it retained the old position of permitting other family members to succeed in a tenancy.

·       The succession procedure in the council had been to assess the suitability of the surviving family member who meets the succession criteria, to continue to live on the property. Where the property was deemed unsuitable, the council assisted with relocation to a more appropriate home.

·       The succession policy also contained specific guidelines on changes from sole to joint, and joint to sole tenancies.

·       When a bereaved family member occupant was deemed not to have the right to remain on a property, conversations about relocating them would be challenging and sensitive. This ensured the Council approached such discussions with empathy and understanding.

·       Notices were generally served no more than 6-12 months following the tenant’s passing.

·       The future options for the council to explore were whether to adopt an automatic right of succession or allow officers to exercise discretion based on individual circumstances.

·       A key consideration in formulating the succession policy was to encourage communication regarding succession rights to the council’s tenants, particularly when they were adults who were dependent on care.

In response to questions and comments from Members, it was noted that:

·       The council did not have the authority to grant succession; it occurred automatically when the legal criteria have been met.

·       Where an individual was unlawfully occupying a property, the council was entitled to charge mesne profit, which was the equivalent of the rent that would have been payable on the property. In such cases, the council could also work with the occupant to review their other rights and explore alternative housing options, which could lead to them being relocated to a more suitable property.

·       The council tried to prevent homelessness as much as possible. Therefore, if an occupant was not qualified to succeed, they would normally be allowed to remain on the property until they are rehoused.

·       If a decision was made against a tenant’s succession claim, they would have no legal right to appeal.

·       Rehousing rightful tenants was not done through direct let, eliminating the need for tenants who were waiting to be rehoused to join a waiting list.

·       The council’s policies were expected to align with the legal frameworks on succession, and best practice was to review every 3-5 years.

·       In a case of joint tenancy, both tenants held equal rights. Either of them could give notice, which effectively brought the tenancy to an end.

·       Extending the timeframe for informing bereaved occupants about their lack of succession rights or potential rehousing would impact other benefits, such as Universal Credit.

·       Tenancy succession was not a gift, but a right bestowed by law that is non-transferable. Consequently, a couple could not decide if their child would succeed them.

AGREED:

The Commission noted the report.