Marriage split could leave council tenant homeless (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Marriage split could leave council tenant, Michael Sims, homeless
3:00pm Thursday 24th January 2013 in News By Frazer Ansell
An embattled council tenant whose wife left him now also faces losing the roof over his head after judges ruled he cannot stay in the three-bedroom family home they once shared.
Michael Sims suffered a double misfortune when his wife, Sharon, moved out of their home in Dunny Lane, Chipperfield, and informed Dacorum Borough Council that she was quitting her joint tenancy.
Mr Sims was informed by the council that his wife's unilateral decision also terminated his right to live in the house and issued possession proceedings against him.
He argued that his eviction would amount to a violation of his fundamental human rights, but Court of Appeal judges ruled today that his arguments flew in the face of established property law and he would have to go.
Mr Sims was also refused permission to appeal further to The Supreme Court but his lawyers say his case raises such an important issue that they plan to petition the court directly to hear his case.
Lawyers for Mr Sims had argued that it was fundamentally unjust that he should be forced out of his home when neither the council nor his wife gave him any warning of the termination of the joint tenancy.
Andrew Arden QC said eviction would breach Mr Sims' right to respect for his home and to unhindered enjoyment of his private property.
However, dismissing his appeal, Lord Justice Mummery, sitting with Lord Justice Etherton and Sir Scott Baker said it was established law that a periodic joint tenancy is terminated automatically if one of the tenants gives notice to quit on the landlord.
The judge said: "Stating the matter quite baldly, Mr Sims is aiming, by use of the European Convention on Human Rights, to obtain a tenancy of a three-bedroom family home for himself in place of the joint tenancy of a family home which the council had originally granted.
"That seems to me to be more a case of interference with the council's enjoyment of its possessions than of an interference by the council with the possessions of Mr Sims."
Mrs Sims "had the right" to unilaterally terminate the joint tenancy without consulting her husband and his appeal was "unarguable", the judge concluded.
Execution of a possession order over Mr Sims' home was stayed pending his decision on whether to appeal further to the Supreme Court.
Comments(27)
crazyfrog
says...
10:38pm Thu 24 Jan 13
not a regular
says...
9:05am Fri 25 Jan 13
Yes, give him notice. Give him the usual notice that a private tenant would be given.
At the end of the day, he's getting a three bedroom house at a subsidised price, so I think he's actually had a pretty good deal so far. In the age of perpetual rent rises, dodgy landlords and agents, make way for a family that actually needs 3 bedrooms.
Sure you can say he might have made a house a home, but he doesn't own it. Private tenancy suffers the same deal.
Roy Stockdill
says...
11:51am Fri 25 Jan 13
The judges for once are quite right. The Human Rights Act, with its vague waffling about the right to enjoy one's home and privacy, should not be allowed to over-ride established case law, which clearly exists in this particular case.
If David Cameron is really genuine about his desire to get Britain a better deal from Europe, the first thing he should do is get us out of the European Court and scrap the HRA which, apart from anything else, is frequently used by foreign criminal scum to avoid being deported.
garston tony
says...
10:03am Mon 28 Jan 13
Social housing is supposed to be there for times of need, that understanding has changed in the public mind and now people have the view that it is a house for life regardless of personal circumstances. We have a situation where people earning good money who could support themselves in the private market are entrenched in social homes whilst thousands of genuine people in need are struggling by. Ditto people living in properties that are too large for them.
I for one applaud the government introducing rules that encourage people to move out of properties they no longer fill and for introducing reviews where tenants can have their tenancies terminated if they no longer require state assistance. That will free up homes for those that actually need them and will mean the tax payer is no longer subsidising people where they don’t need it.
If someone who has a council property believes they are in there for life that is a false assumption and things like this should be a reality check.
highhigh
says...
10:14am Mon 28 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:The reason these houses can be considered 'houses for life' is due to the fact that it is near on impossible unless your earning good money to purchase a house. I thought social housing was originally seen as a stepping stone to purchasing the property? I agree with what your saying regarding policy and the amount of people in each house. I just think that people these days dont have the choice and therefore can you blame them for refurbishing what they have?
Crazyfrog, this is rented accommodation and like any rented accommodation if you do improvements, decorating etc. it is at the risk that one day you will most likely have to walk away from it. Just because someone has tarted a property up does not give them a right to stay there forever.
Social housing is supposed to be there for times of need, that understanding has changed in the public mind and now people have the view that it is a house for life regardless of personal circumstances. We have a situation where people earning good money who could support themselves in the private market are entrenched in social homes whilst thousands of genuine people in need are struggling by. Ditto people living in properties that are too large for them.
I for one applaud the government introducing rules that encourage people to move out of properties they no longer fill and for introducing reviews where tenants can have their tenancies terminated if they no longer require state assistance. That will free up homes for those that actually need them and will mean the tax payer is no longer subsidising people where they don’t need it.
If someone who has a council property believes they are in there for life that is a false assumption and things like this should be a reality check.
Roy Stockdill
says...
10:50am Mon 28 Jan 13
Agree with you once more, Tony (this is becoming worrying). In the same way, there are so many council employees who seem to think they have a job for life. What gets into people that they think the world owes them a house and a living? It doesn't!
This fellow clearly doesn't need a 3-bedroomed house all to himself (there's no mention of any children), so he will just have to lower his sights and rent a smaller place privately. Or if he's working and earning a wage, he could try for a mortgage on a small one-bedroom flat. There seem to be plenty of them around, according to estate agents' adverts. Lots of marriages break up these days, leaving one or sometimes both partners in difficulties. Tough, but that's life. I suspect there are plenty of people around in far worse circumstances. Perhaps he should have tried harder at making the marriage work.
garston tony
says...
2:24pm Mon 28 Jan 13
And yes there are plenty of people who cant for whatever reason enter the private market to rent or buy. Those are not the people I'm on about, im thinking about those who have decent jobs and who could afford to support themselves but who are allowed currently to stay in subsidised accommodation creating once again the scenario where someone who works and struggles in the private sector housing market is subsidising someone to have a better standard of living than they in the social housing market. And then of course they are also taking up a property that could be used by someone who actually cant support themselves on the waiting list.
The fact that the right to buy discount isnt actually that great right now yet people are still buying their properties points to the fact that many tenants could afford to rent or buy privately.
garston tony
says...
2:26pm Mon 28 Jan 13
I do agree with your comments on this chap, if he doesn’t have full time custody of children (I doubt something like that would have been ommitted, this story must come from the tenant surely and that would have been mentioned to add to the 'sob' story) then why does he expect the rest of us to subsidise him in a three bed property? If a couple split up who are renting privately or own often they struggle and homes are given up and sold. Why should those people, if they are working, subsidise this chaps standard of living when they are going through the same thing but receive no tax payer help.
Roy Stockdill
says...
2:39pm Mon 28 Jan 13
LSC
says...
3:09pm Mon 28 Jan 13
Two people I know got married and he moved in with her to her mothers council house, and they put themselves on the list for a place of their own. Then she got pregnant so the urgency went up a notch.
The council actually told them they had done it the wrong way round; she should have got pregnant before marriage and would be much higher up the list.
In the end, (on advice) the mother evicted them so the council had to house them.
The sad thing was, they both had full time jobs, quite well paid too, a new car every 3 years or so, but came from a culture that seemed to see a council house was the only way to go.
The REALLY sad thing was if they fancied a new bathroom suite or new back door, they'd vandalise the existing one and the council would replace it. They couldn't understand why I was shocked at this; 'everybody does it'...
Roy Stockdill
says...
4:15pm Mon 28 Jan 13
garston tony
says...
11:10am Tue 29 Jan 13
But yes, the system has been twisted so that it penalises those that try and do the right thing and helps those that play the game. I've often heard of parents 'threatening' to evict children as ploy to get them into their own home. One particular story was of a mother with many children who screamed blue murder at the council until they gave her a large property - could even be that they joined two properties together just for this family - at which point she almost immediately 'evicted' her children one by one over the next couple of years leaving her with just the youngest in a property too large for her needs and her sprogs in flats of their own. I know from a good source that the council caved in to her knowing she was playing a game purely because she was vocal over the matter.
Personally, build loads of hostels and if you're under 25 and being 'evicted' from parents home that is the accommodation you are put in to. Not a place of your own but shared accommodation. That'll soon stop the games me thinks.
I'll say it again you can critisise the government for a lot of things, the reforms that stop people abusing the social welfare system is not one of them as far as I'm concernd and indeed I can think of ways they could go further. Capping benefits at 26k for instance is a start but when many people that work earn less than that more could be done there.
The message needs to be made clear, the state does not owe you a living or a standard of living. The state is there to provide assistance in times of need, once that time of need is over you should no longer get assistance and if you can but don’t make efforts to improve your circumstances then you should no longer get assistance either. I think that that is something most right minded people agree on, on the end of benefits affording people a better standard of living then those that work and on the end of benefits allowing people to choose not to work
garston tony
says...
11:20am Tue 29 Jan 13
They were talking about the bedroom tax on the radio yesterday, tenant after tenant came on saying I need a spare room for when my children come to visit and its unfair that I'm going to have to pay for it blah blah. Sorry, they don’t live at that property anymore why should I pay for you to have a spare room for when you have guests? I don’t have a spare room for guests and I work darn hard running my own business to support myself and my family, why should my tax go towards giving that luxury to someone else? Why should another family who actually needs that extra room be denied it so that you can use it a handful of times each year?
This is a subject that can go on at a tangent isnt it!
garston tony
says...
11:25am Tue 29 Jan 13
Why should I pay for you to enlarge your family when I myself along with many other tax payers had/have to take into account the actual cost and sacrifice of having more children before we actually go ahead with it? There are people who support themselves who would love more children but don’t because they cant afford or its not practical. Why are their taxes supporting people who don’t work to have the children they want and the added expense to the state that that entails?
garston tony
says...
11:32am Tue 29 Jan 13
garston tony wrote:Could I be so rude as to generalise, I made sure I could afford (as much as you can ever afford children!) to have children when I had them and even then it was a struggle but we supported ourselves.
People who are given council accommodation then decide to have another sprog who then expect/demand a bigger property? No, sorry you were given a two bed, you know you are in a two bed if you choose to have another child then it should be on the basis that you know full well that you're going to remain in a two bed. You chose to change your circumstances, you deal with the consequences. Why should I pay for you to enlarge your family when I myself along with many other tax payers had/have to take into account the actual cost and sacrifice of having more children before we actually go ahead with it? There are people who support themselves who would love more children but don’t because they cant afford or its not practical. Why are their taxes supporting people who don’t work to have the children they want and the added expense to the state that that entails?
It is a generalisation but I cant help but imagine that the majority of people who dont work and never have worked who have children and expect the state to cater or their changes in circumstances with bigger houses etc are raising children who will follow the same path. They'll play the game to get into a council house and have their own children and expect their family to be taken care of and so it goes on and on.
I know this is a generalisation but I also know its true of many many people over many generations now.
So not only am I paying for people to have larger families but i'm paying for their children and their childrens children to do the same. This has got to stop and thankfully changes are starting to that end
My kids on the other hand will take every consideration before starting their families and only do so when they can afford to and ditto any additional children.
Roy Stockdill
says...
12:08pm Tue 29 Jan 13
I agree that there are some things this coalition government is doing that can be said to be wrong, but in attacking the benefits culture they've got it dead right. More power to their elbow!
garston tony
says...
3:33pm Tue 29 Jan 13
When it comes to benefits the stipulation should be 'you've approached the state for assistance because you can not support yourselves. If you are entitled to assistance then your current circumstances are the base line. I.e. you have one child or are expecting one child and you will be given a home for you and one child. Should you have a second child you will not be given a bigger property as you have deliberately chosen to change your circumstances'
When I was younger and thinking or started a family I and my peers thought hard about when to have children. For most people having a child does mean a financial sacrifice and you try and choose the best moment to take that on and you make the same decision if you are looking to have a second child. Some of my peers decided to delay having a second child as they could not afford a bigger property, at least one only had one child as that was all the felt they could reasonably afford. All that time they were making that decision their taxes were paying for people in council houses who due to the way the benefit system was didn’t have to ponder and debate the issue they just went ahead and dropped another sprog out knowing that the state would accommodate them. That still happens now and that is wrong wrong wrong.
I must stress that this is a generalisation, but it is a true one in many cases, its been going on far too long and it needs to stop. I have nothing against helping those in genuine need, I do have a problem people making decisions who believe it is their right to have others pay for it
Roy Stockdill
says...
3:55pm Tue 29 Jan 13
I am certain it is the experience of some families of being brought up in the benefits culture, sometimes for several generations, that makes them think the rest of us owe them a living.
They should have lived in Victorian times and earlier when there was no welfare state, only the Poor Law. Under the old poor laws if a person or family looked like becoming a burden on the parish relief fund and they weren't originally from the parish, they would be hauled before a magistrates and questioned about their origins. If they couldn't prove they had a right of settlement in the parish, then they would be sent back to the parish where they did have a settlement, often forcibly.
I am not suggesting we return to those days, but there certainly needs to be a very major rehaul of the entire benefits system to clamp down on the feckless.
LSC
says...
11:15pm Tue 29 Jan 13
I know a woman who had a second child because she didn't like the flat she was given first time around; she had no intention of ever staying with the father of that child, but she was hoping to be closer to the shops.
I know of another who had a child, got a flat and instantly sub-let it to a group of foreign workers happy to sleep 4 to a room and moved back home with her mother and enjoyed the profits.
As I said earlier, I'm sure some of these loopholes have been filled or are being tackled, but we all know of people who abuse the system.
garston tony
says...
12:43pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Yes how you think and act is shaped by your surroundings and upbringing, I believe however that you still have a choice to break away from your circumstances but ultimately the choice/ability to sponge of the state for life shouldn’t be there in the first place.
LSC, it is difficult not to generalise I agree but I really don’t want to tar everyone with the same brush. For all the many stories of greed and deception and lazyness we all seemingly know I also know of people who for genuine reasons are receiving state support and who desperately want to get back to supporting themselves.
But there in lies the difference, the genuine people see the benefit system as it should be. A safety net to be used until they can bounce backand they do their best to bounce back as quickly as possible. Unfortunately far too many people see it as a lifestyle choice and I'm okay with any changes that ensure that can no longer happen.
garston tony
says...
12:57pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Since when has smoking, drinking, gambling and being entertained at the tax payers expense been a human right? This claim just reveals again the fact that too many people don’t realise that social benefits are a safety net and not there to support life style choices. Basic food, clothing, heating and shelter is whats its for. If you want more then get a job and support yourself and pay for it yourself. The only people I would make an exception for are people who genuinely are unable to work for medical/physical reasons who don’t and wont have that option.
This is even before we get to the point that there are people who are on benefits because they cant work because of drink or tobacco or drug related issues. There are certain shops in Watford and throughout the country I'm sure where come benefit payment day you'll find the local alcoholics stocking up on cheap booze, I knew of one shop that also contained a post office that used to allow them to run up a tab and when they came to draw their money out they deducted whatever was owed from their benefits and the cycle started again.
We are also told life is not easy on benefits, I'm sure for many it isnt but it’s a whole lot harder if you're spending a proportion of what you do get on non essentials and goodness knows the condition of the children if any are involved if money that could be spend on decent food is spent on beer and fags.
I'm all for giving help where it is needed, but those that take advantage just make it harder by taking away from those that genuinly need it and by creating a negative perception of all people getting assistance not just those cheating to get it
garston tony
says...
1:09pm Wed 30 Jan 13
I would take that further, anyone who receives state support should be made to work a certain number of hours on community projects. It could be stuff like street cleaning or maybe work that utilises skills and experience they have or maybe something designed to give them a skill. I wouldn’t say it should be full time but say 16-20 hours a week leaving plenty of time still to look for work.
I believe the genuine people would accept and indeed welcome it (cant imagine anything worse than having no purpose in life day to day on a long term basis. One day of day time television for instance is more than enough for me!) and the shirkers get the boot up the derrier they deserve with the option to stop getting benefits if they cant get their lazy behinds out of bed before mid day (yes, make it morning work! 9am start, or 9.30 if you have to drop kids off somewhere).
Just a side thought, I wonder how much anti social behaviour is carried out by people who have made a life choice to be on benefits? I'm aware that a strong generalisation again but the mention of people staying in bed reminds me of some things I know where unemployed dole dossers create(d) havoc for neighbours as they had boozed up social gatherings both inside and outside their housing benefit paid for homes until the wee hours and then were able to sleep it off until the early afternoon when the whole process started again.
Roy Stockdill
says...
1:24pm Wed 30 Jan 13
Unfortunately, the phrase "human rights" has entered our language and our culture - how many times do you hear thick and ignorant people say "It's me 'uman rights, innit"? - and it will take a long time to eradicate it. Of course, the whole human rights industry is being driven by avaricious lawyers, for whom it has become a huge and prosperous gravy train.
garston tony
says...
12:51pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Basic human rights in the context of this story should be adequate food, shelter, basic clothing and heating based on the assumption that the person requiring it is either a) doing their best to get into a situation where they can provide for themselves or b) are due to medical or other reasons unable to provide for themselves.
It is not a human right to live in accommodation too large for you paid for by the state, it is not a human right to expect state help if you can manage for yourself and most of all it is not a human right but an extreme privelage to have children and i find it disgusting and disturbing that people are having children as some sort of ploy and/or when they can not support themselves let alone it. It is not a human right to expect other people to pay for you to have a family.
In the context of crime the human right should first and foremost protect the innocent party. I dont mean criminals should be tortured etc. but that their rights should not take priority over the rights of their victims or potential victims or the need for them to be adequately punished for crimes committed. That includes victims not being punished for protecting themselves from criminals!
Roy Stockdill
says...
1:10pm Thu 31 Jan 13
I believe the Human Rights Act was initially one of those good ideas which has simply gone bad because feckless and unscrupulous people have abused it to an extent that it is now regarded as a joke. You need human rights laws in countries that are dictatorships, where democracy doesn't exist and where people can disappear into jails and never be heard of again. You do not need them in democratic countries such as the UK where just about every conceivable circumstance is already covered by some law or other.
Every time I see an ad on telly for those legal firms offering to take up your case if you have a grievance and win you compensation I want to chuck a brick through the screen! Allowing solicitors to advertise their services is the worst thing the Law Society ever did. I am sick of cold calls from firms that play a recorded message telling you you're entitled to compensation if you've been mis-sold insurance or a pension scheme or whatever. I get these even though my number is registered with the TPS because these cowboys don't seem to care.
"Human rights" has become the all-embracing excuse for people who don't want to take responsibility for their own lives. I recall when I was still doing my column for the paid-for WO writing about an idiot who whinged that it was a breach of his human rights because he couldn't park his car outside his girl friend's house and had to walk 100 yards!
garston tony
says...
3:28pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Hardly a week goes by without examples of this appearing on this very web site with people wishing to point fingers of blame or asking for sympathy and support for things that are of their own doing or that they should just get on with.
The only positive to stories like that are to give me an opportunity to vent!
highhigh says...
6:12pm Thu 24 Jan 13