Tenancy rights?

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Thursday 22 May 2008 9.34pm
The tenants of Canterbury House and Stangate were at a meeting today, at which they were informed that they were to be moved from a protected tenancy to an assured one, when they are moved into the new development. Also, their rents would go up from 43.00 to a 130+.
Seeing as they did not choose to move, can the managing agents (Pathmedes) make them sign a new tenancy agreement (seeming ii is not their choice to move)?
Friday 23 May 2008 11.04am
It sounds very unlikely to me. Go to www.landlordzone.co.uk where there is an excellent forum.


It is a completely different point, of course, but in what sense is it fair that people pay such low rents as a result of rent control.


The Council tenancy relations officer should be able to help as well.
Saturday 24 May 2008 10.48am
westofbank wrote:
The tenants of Canterbury House and Stangate were at a meeting today, at which they were informed that they were to be moved from a protected tenancy to an assured one, when they are moved into the new development. Also, their rents would go up from 43.00 to a 130+.
Seeing as they did not choose to move, can the managing agents (Pathmedes) make them sign a new tenancy agreement (seeming ii is not their choice to move)?

The rent issue would be helped if you were on a registered rent in the current property. As they would have to ensure they had a fair rent assessment on the new property.

I think my secure tenancy was replaced with an assured one and I took legal advice and was told the protection was as strong.

Whilst our situation was out of London and involved our home been demolished I would tell your local councillors of what is going on, as ours turned out to be stars and ensured that the landlord rehoused as many of the residents as they could - which they weren't legally obliged to do with everyone.
Saturday 24 May 2008 12.12pm
There are big differences betwee the two, one is that with an 'Assured Tenancy' a judge is obliged to start eviction if the tenant falls more than 8 weeks behind with rent, with 'Secure' the decision is at the judge's discretion, the 'right to buy' becomes 'right to acquire'. There are other differences, don't believe the 'spin' of 'social' landlords the two tenacies are very different, defined in different eras, for different reasons. Yes, different.
Saturday 24 May 2008 7.59pm
Thanks for those replies. The majority of the tenants in this situation have been living here for decades and should be protected by the rent agreements that they signed with the Trust (St Thomas's) in the first place.
The problem for the tenants is that their block of flats will demolished once the new adjacent block is built. Although the Trust is a registered charity, there has been nothing charitable about their behaviour.
They (the Trust) claim that are compelled by law to offer an Assured Tenancy, and that the tenants have no choice but to accept. Given that most of these tenants are past retirement age, I felt they were behaving in a heartless fashion.
Sunday 25 May 2008 3.15pm
westofbank wrote:
Thanks for those replies. The majority of the tenants in this situation have been living here for decades and should be protected by the rent agreements that they signed with the Trust (St Thomas's) in the first place.
The problem for the tenants is that their block of flats will demolished once the new adjacent block is built. Although the Trust is a registered charity, there has been nothing charitable about their behaviour.
They (the Trust) claim that are compelled by law to offer an Assured Tenancy, and that the tenants have no choice but to accept. Given that most of these tenants are past retirement age, I felt they were behaving in a heartless fashion.

Get your local councillor's involved and those prospective candidates for your MP.

I had been living in my accomodation for over 20 years with a secured tenancy and they weren't talking to me. Our local councillors and a lib dem candidate for MP in our local area came up trumps.

Whilst the councillors did what they could behind the scenes eventually we had to go public, at their suggestion, and they handled this for the residents concerned.

As I have previously said they got better results then we could envisage.

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: