Notice to vacate corporation/ sw house

Del2005

Lenar3556 wrote: »

You are making some assumptions there - who said anything about the existence of rent assessment forms?There is much which is unknown from the report by the OP, and as I have outlined the full facts would need to be understood. Some local authorities have always been efficient in carrying out annual rent reviews. But others were not, and rent reviews were often known to be undertaken by a housing officer or revenue collector calling to the dwelling, discussing circumstances, reviewing documents and taking notes.

There may or may not be significant body of evidence for the LA to rely upon in claiming they were misled.

There is then the question of who misled them, and did they undertake due diligence over the past 34 years?

The moralities of the situation are a separate matter, and I would have strong views on this, but make no mistake the man may not have been on record as a tenant, but if he lived there for 34 years, he is defacto in such a position and the LA are now likely to have a difficulty.

Regardless of what the LA did or didn't do isn't the responsibility on the tenant to inform their landlord if anything changes, like getting married, or if their income changes, I'm sure she'd of been quick to contact them if her income decreased yet couldn't in 34 years tell them the house had a much higher income than declared.

Del2005

beauf wrote: »

Does it matter?

Squatting isn't a tenancy. If I broke into your house tomorrow and said I was squatting can I stay there because you can't evict me?

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Del2005 wrote: »

Squatting isn't a tenancy. If I broke into your house tomorrow and said I was squatting can I stay there because you can't evict me?

If you broke in you would not be a squatter. You are correct the tenant is obliged to inform the council of any changes re income or money coming in

Lenar3556

Del2005 wrote: »

Squatting isn't a tenancy. If I broke into your house tomorrow and said I was squatting can I stay there because you can't evict me?

No, but if you broke in 34 years ago you would be in a better position.

Lenar3556

Del2005 wrote: »

Regardless of what the LA did or didn't do isn't the responsibility on the tenant to inform their landlord if anything changes, like getting married, or if their income changes, I'm sure she'd of been quick to contact them if her income decreased yet couldn't in 34 years tell them the house had a much higher income than declared.

Indeed, but would her neglecting to do so satisfy a court to grant an order to evict her recently widowed husband after 34 years?

Lenar3556

Aitana Tinkling Comics wrote: »

any local authority i know of send out rent review forms.They have to be filled in.All tenants and all tenants incomes go on and have to send evidence. i now someone in a local authority house who has to send evidence of welfare and knew several who had to send evidence of income from employment. I knew of none where an officer would call out. Perhaps you can say which local authorities don't send out rent review forms?

He is defacto a squatter

I have no idea what the common practise is, although what you suggest sounds reasonable. Hopefully they can get tenants to engage.

I do remember a case in the west of Ireland some years ago where a rural house was assigned to a family of four in the early 1960’s. The mum died in 2005 and her son who had a mild learning disability continued to reside there on his own. He continued to pay the same weekly rent in person at the local authority office on a monthly basis, as he had done on behalf of his mother for several years. I can’t say with certainty that the LA were specifically informed of the mother’s death, but it certainly wasn’t disguised.
Several years later, the receipt issued by the teller still had his mother’s name printed on it, until it was changed to his name around the time the LA undertook a significant upgrade of the house maybe around 2014 - however the rent remained the same at €26.00 per week since the euro changeover in 2002. Might not be a typical case, but it wouldn’t appear their rent review process was operating very efficiently in that particular instance.

Graham

Aitana Tinkling Comics wrote: »

He is defacto a squatter

Wouldn't that require 'sole and exclusive occupation and possession' for a rather large number of years?

I suspect payment of rent could also be an issue in such a claim.

jimmycrackcorm

deanylkl wrote: »

Hi
They also stated he is earning more than the threshold to apply for social housing.he is only a year away from retirement and would leave now if it meant he can stay.

Retiring early would not make any difference as he still has to go on the social housing list like everyone else. Living in the same house for so long does not give an entitlement.

In terms of advice, he should probably get on to his local TD to see if they can do anything.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Retiring early will not make him any mote eligible. He will be what 65? There will be many on the list who have families and are younger and he would be considered to be over accommodated if it is a 3 bed house. Also retiring won't change the fact that he has not applied in his own name. He won't get to the top of the list if he retires and applies.

I would guess that as he is 65 and seems to have savings and a good job the council will say he should go to the private sector or may let him apply for one bed apartment. Or possibly he could apply for an apartment from non council housing bodies who build for older persons or retirees.

Del2005

Aitana Tinkling Comics wrote: »

If you broke in you would not be a squatter. You are correct the tenant is obliged to inform the council of any changes re income or money coming in

You have to break into a property to be a squatter. So the question is how long after someone illegally takes possession of another's property are they a squatter?

Lenar3556 wrote: »

No, but if you broke in 34 years ago you would be in a better position.

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Indeed, but would her neglecting to do so satisfy a court to grant an order to evict her recently widowed husband after 34 years?

He didn't break in 34 years ago. He moved in illegally and avoided paying rent for 34 years, his wife's estate should be hit with a massive rent bill. The council didn't ignore the property for 34 years so he can't claim adverse possession and he's only being squatting since his wife died

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Del2005 wrote: »

You have to break into a property to be a squatter. So the question is how long after someone illegally takes possession of another's property are they a squatter?

No, you cannot be a squatter if you break in.That would be breaking and entering or some similar. To be squatter you have to be able to get in without breaking in, then you can squat

BattleCorp

I can't see a court evicting him because his recently deceased wife didn't fill in the forms as required, especially as he can prove he lived there for 34 years.

Lenar3556

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Indeed, but would her neglecting to do so satisfy a court to grant an order to evict her recently widowed husband after 34 years?

I would hope so.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

What happened OP?

mea_k

If he is earning above threshold, on his own than with his late wife that would have been double. Hence he was never registered at the property. No leg to stand on now...
And if this comes to life they will come for outstanding money they should have paid originally.
Sorry.