Think tank

However, other sources, including the Charity Commission, suggest we should have another clause in the tenancy asking beneficiaries to inform us if their circumstances alter and they no longer qualify as objects of charity. Should we have a clause in the tenancy giving us the power to evict where this occurs or is there another way to deal with such cases?

The Charity Commission guidance says "charitable registered social landlords should remind beneficiaries that the RSL's charitable support can only be offered in law because their circumstances are such as to show a need for the help that a charity can give. The beneficiary should be asked to inform the trustees of his or her circumstances if his or her circumstances improved substantially so as to throw this into doubt." It does not say, however, that this should necessarily be a statement in the tenancy agreement. The tenants could be reminded of this requirement through an information pack or tenancy handbook without the need for it to be specifically included in the tenancy agreement.

On the question of eviction, the guidance states: "The government, Charity Commission and Housing Corporation are all clear that it is not appropriate for RSLs to means-test beneficiaries with a view to terminating their tenancies should their economic circumstances improve." The commission, therefore, recognises the security of tenure afforded to RSL tenants.

It does, however, suggest that RSLs should have in place policies for dealing with cases that come to the RSL's attention. An example of such a policy would be to "promote any available incentive schemes leading to full or shared ownership of the current (or other) dwelling". The guidance is not prescriptive as to what the policy should say.

Rosemary Hart, Partner and housing specialist, Trowers & Hamlins

Leaving shared ownership
I am in shared housing but am now able to buy my own house. However, I cannot get my housing association to settle its share in the shared house. I have been trying to do this for some time and have already lost out on one house I wanted to buy because of the situation.

I know there is a waiting list of people wanting shared ownership in the area, so the association will have no problem finding someone to take over the house.

What rights do I have other than going through the complaints procedure, which may be very time-consuming?

Both the shared-ownership lease and the housing association's procedures should set out how this situation should be handled and what the association should do when you want to move out. If the association is failing to comply with its legal obligations, or breaching its own procedures, you can pursue a complaint and in some cases you may be able to take legal action, but I accept that either course of action may take time.

All I can suggest is that if you suffer loss through the association's fault, you will be eligible for compensation.

John Bryant, Policy officer, National Housing Federation

Daughter's right to succession
On 30 May, a letter raised a question about a daughter's right to succeed to her mother's council tenancy. The mother had herself succeeded to what would have been the grandfather's tenancy. The panel took the view that the granddaughter therefore had no right to succeed. Sadly, this answer overlooked the questioner's point that the grandfather's death occurred in 1978. At that date, there was no statutory right to succession – it was introduced in 1980.

In those circumstances, there was no true succession when the grandfather died and the mother took over. Accordingly, when the mother died, the daughter had the statutory right to succeed. It was the first statutory succession.

Jan Luba QC