Does a tenancy agrement exist?

[efpom]

1 The facts:
in October 22, Mrs X entered into a secure tenancy agreement in standard form with a local authority for a modest property in a small estate designed for elderly people. In January 23, at a meeting between her and three (unelected) officers of that local authority, those representatives stated that the property should not have been let out to her because it did not meet the local authorities “lettings standard”. They also gave her a promise that she would not be financially disadvantaged as a result.

Relying on that promise, Mrs X made applications for payment for her direct costs. Those not paid. In October 23, she issued proceedings for those costs and for distress and inconvenience and about 3 weeks later she obtained judgment and an order in her favour against the local authority. The proceedings went undefended. The order was not complied with, it was transferred to the High Court for enforcement, and a HCEA attended the offices of the local authority in early January 24 to compel enforcement.

In early December 23, the local authority notified Mrs X that the property was ready for her occupation, and invited to occupy it within 10 days, pursuant to the tenancy agreement and that she was liable for rent and other outgoings from that date or in the alternative, it was incumbent on her to end the tenancy in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement.

Mrs X took the position in writing to the local authority, that because the property did not meet its “lettings standard”, the property could not have been let out to her, or anyone else, and as no valid tenancy agreement existed, there was no tenancy agreement to be ended.

The local authority’s response on 22 Jan 24 was to fix her with liability for the property from Mid Dec 23, that she was in arrears with rent and council tax and stated that “If you choose to not terminate the tenancy or take up occupancy, we will serve you with Notice and commence legal action to end the tenancy on ground of abandonment / non occupation, which is a breach of the tenancy; section Y.Y which states that you must occupy the property as your main or principal home.”"

"“I note that you challenged that no tenancy was in existence. This is not the case; a tenancy was created in law when you signed the tenancy agreement on 21 October 2022 and took possession of the property. Nothing which has taken place since then has nullified the tenancy agreement."

Section Y.Y
“You must occupy the property as your principal or only home. If you expect to be absent for over two months, you must inform us and ensure the rent is paid.”

The Legal question is:

Does an enforceable tenancy agreement exist?

[islandgirl]

Very confusing! Who were the unelected officers? Employees of the council?
Were the things which prevented the property meeting the letting standard (if that was true) rectified before Dec 23?
Did Mrs X give any formal notice to end the tenancy?
Is Mrs X a council tenant at the property she is living in now?
How on earth did Mrs X get a court win so quickly (even if undefended) and get "distress and inconvenience" damages? Seems very rapid indeed.

[efpom]

your q 1 I assume they were employees - they were certainly unelected.
your q 2 Don't know, but see below.
your q 3 No
your q 4 It is rapid - if a claim goes undefended, judgment in default issues. The claim was made via MCOL.

On q 2: The finished floors had thermoplastic tiles, which were broken, missing or damaged. Those tiles and their bituminous adhesive contained asbestos which may have released airborne asbestos fibres. The tiles would have been safe if they were "undisturbed" to quote the LA's writing. As they were not "undisturbed", the LA's Asbestos Policy, made by the elected councilors was in play. The unelected officers chose not to implement that Policy, and it was not open to them to do so. The role of unelected council officers is to advise when policy is being created, and afterwards to implement policy set by elected councilors. But that's another story for another day!

However, the legal question I posed in my post 1 remains:

[islandgirl]

As an elected councillor I understand your points but still wonder if those who said it was unfit for habitation had the authority to do so. Whatever the situation surely (even if a contract existed) it was frustrated by the dangerous flooring and the house being unfit for habitation? I would love to be able to advise the exact legal position but the common sense one says there is no contract! Is there any proof of what the unelected officials said (in writing?).

[efpom]

Fitness for Human habitation is is not dependent on an official''s opinion.

see https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ation-act-2018

[efpom]

Is there proof in writing - Yes In it’s response to the Letter before Claim in late Sept 23, the LA stated in writing in referring to the meeting held in January 23 "It was agreed that when you signed the tenancy with effect from XX/10/2022, the property did not meet the Council’s Lettings Standard due to some missing floor tiles."

” The last 3 word are disingenuous, aimed at minimising the state of the floor tiles.

[R0b]

Based on the facts you have given, I'm not sure how you can construe it any way other than that a tenancy exists. I'm not familiar with secure tenancies but suggests that these are created under the Housing Act 1985.

If the tenant is claiming that a valid tenancy doesn't exist based on what was told at the meeting with the local authority, then her she will have to prove that the statement made by that unelected officer(s) was a statement that could, by law, override and effectively void or create a voidable tenancy created by the HA 1985.

As for the tiles not meeting the local authority's standards, again I would say that unless there is something in law that again renders the tenancy void or voidable, it seems to me, that the tenant wilfully signed the contract. I am not sure if that was before she was notified of the standards issue although it sounds like it based on my interpretation but nonetheless, I am not sure how that a failure to implement or apply a policy invalidates a tenancy agreement. My immediate thoughts are that if the house does not meet the policy standards of the local authority, the tenant may have an argument that the authority carry out the necessary works to meet that standard or if it cannot or is unwilling to, then exercise a right to terminate the contract for breach. Equally, the same applies if the contract stipulates obligations on the local authority but they fail to comply or there is something under the HA 1985 imposing obligations on the authority for which they are in breach.

Maybe I'm missing something I don't know, but I am inclined to agree with the authority on this one unless there is something else to support the tenant's position.