Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Here is a scenario:

Houses with their tenants are transferred from a council to a housing association.

In order to do so there is a consultation process and a vote. The process promises rights to induce a yes vote above the statutory requirement, and provisions are written in the tenancy agreement, in this case the relevant one is for a right of succession as per the 1985 housing act, though it is similar it is not the same.

Some years later the tenant dies, and his son, A informs the Landlord B of the fact, and at the same time asks for succession rights. B denies that they exist, and says that the 1988 provisions apply.

A asks B to clarify his position in writing which he does, but takes his time.

Then B takes action to evict A. A subsequently discovers that had he been informed correctly of the provisions of the tenancy he could have made full use of its provisions in time (The provisions are time limited) which would make eviction impossible.

This is a sort of summary of a real case. I have yet to see the out come, but am interested if any thoughts spring to mind. After all it would appear that B stands to gain benefit from representing the facts as different from what they are. This can not be equitable.

Kind regards

Benedict White