Part 2: We are but tenants, and shortly the great landlord will give us notice that our lease has expired
In the second of a two-part guest blog, Community Action Tenants Union set out their case against the current Succession Policy in social housing
When a lead tenant in social housing passes away, the likelihood of other family members being evicted is dependent on whether they are judged to have met criteria to succeed the tenancy.
What are the criteria that the relative / the potential successor needs to reach?
For a Statutory Succession (each social home is allowed to be succeeded once under these criteria), the potential successor needs to have lived with the tenant for 12 months.
For a Policy Succession, when a Statutory Succession is not possible/allowed, a carer may be allowed to succeed the home, but only if they sold a dwelling or given up a tenancy or licence (a tenancy or staying with a relative is insufficient) to provide that care .
Under Very Exceptional Circumstances, when a decision maker judges there is not enough evidence to allow a Statutory- or Policy Succession, in exercising their discretion, they may grant a Policy Succession or make one offer of ‘suitable alternative accommodation.’
The needs of those on the waiting list, and the length of the waiting list for an area, is also taken into account when arriving at a decision; longer waiting list = less likely to succeed.
Evidence & Arguments underpinning CATU’s demands
The 17-page Open Letter, sent to Grainia Long on 24th November 2024, walks the reader through 10 tables of data and supporting arguments, demonstrating that, among other failings, the Policy:
Fails to allow for the fact women on lower incomes, in particular, who provided care to deceased family members, will be unable to show that they gave up a tenancy- or license agreement in order to do so.
Fails to take into account that exposing children to an eviction from their home will be extremely distressing, and not only because they are losing their home, but also because of the impact on friendships and access to school.
Fails to recognise that, regardless of whether or not disabled people provide care, disabled people are more reliant on social housing, and evicting a disabled person will have a proportionately more aversive impact than a non-disabled person.
Discriminates against people who become reliant on the family home from a position of having separated from a partner, but who then subsequently provide care.
Risks causing a higher eviction rate in areas with people predominantly from a Catholic background - areas of higher housing need/longer waiting lists.
Risks forcing an increased proportion of people from a Catholic background to become even more reliant on private renting, and through doing so, increasing their likelihood of experiencing financial hardship and a second bout of homelessness.
We need safe and secure housing for all. Evictions to fudge the numbers under a Policy that has the potential to be highly discriminatory are blatantly wrong. Let’s name the elephant in the room: we need more and better public housing; we need a more proactive and socially just Housing Executive.
Our demands are supported by: