Think tank

We will be living in this house for the next four years unless we win the lottery. What else can we do?

I am sorry to hear about these problems but it is understandable that landlords do not want to transfer tenants with rent arrears. Exceptions ought to be made if special circumstances apply, for instance if there are medical reasons for the move or if the arrears are no fault of the tenant's, but I do not think it is good enough to say that the landlord failed to notify you that rent was not being paid, presumably by housing benefit.

Although the landlord may have been at fault, you have just as much responsibility for checking the state of your rent account and the progress of your housing benefit claim. Had you done so, you would probably have discovered there was a problem.

As you have been through your landlord's complaints procedure, you can have further recourse to the independent housing ombudsman.

Transferring the rent arrears into a sundry account is possible, but the rent account would then be misleading. Keeping the arrears where they are means the tenant's rent account reflects the true state of its financial relationship with the landlord, and that is its purpose.

John Bryant, Policy officer, National Housing Federation

Sort out our succession
We are a registered social landlord and one of our tenants had a sole secure tenancy that started in 1980. He died in 1993. His wife succeeded the tenancy but she died in 2003. Throughout the tenancy, both their sons lived with them and are still occupying the premises.

We have argued with the sons that they are no longer entitled to succeed but we are willing to exercise its discretion by allowing them to stay in the property.

The question is now, how do we enter into this arrangement? If we give them another tenancy in the form of an assured tenancy, this in itself may create another set of succession rights. Or could we authorise them to stay in the property by confirming this in a simple letter?

Giving them a letter will create long-term confusion about their status. Assuming that you want them to pay rent, that they pay rent and you accept it, the fact you have not given them a tenancy agreement will not stop them from being a tenant.

If you say they are holding over as some kind of tolerated trespasser, this will create uncertainty about a whole range of rights, so it is not a good long-term answer.

However, if they just stay there and pay rent, they would be assured shorthold tenants as the 1996 Housing Act states that all tenancies are assured shortholds unless you say otherwise.

Why not offer them an assured shorthold tenancy? While spouses and cohabitees of assured shorthold tenants do have succession rights, if there was a succession to someone you thought inappropriate, you could end the tenancy on two months' notice. They may not be happy about this status, as it is so much less secure.

You could offer them informal assurances about not using the grounds of possession except in limited circumstances, but be careful of providing anything too formal in case you create an assured tenancy.

You also need to consider their housing circumstances and be clear that by allowing them to stay, you are not breaching your charitable objects (if you are a charity), your allocation policy or any nominations agreements you may have that affect this particular property.

catherine hand, Partner at solicitor Jenkins & Hand

Can we ban these racists?
My association runs various sheltered schemes and hostels. We discovered that in one major city, some of our residents are being canvassed by individuals from extremist and racist political parties.

Do we, as the landlord, have any right to bar access to members of specified political parties to our schemes and other premises? Or can we ban named individuals whom we have identified?

Is it different if the canvassers have actually been invited onto the premises by one or more of the residents? I'm concerned about the impact of the Human Rights Act, and also about good practice.

If the canvassers are coming onto the scheme uninvited then, as landlord, you can bar them from doing so on the basis that, being uninvited, they are effectively trespassing on the scheme. The more difficult scenario is where tenants have invited the canvassers onto the scheme.

We see similar situations where tenants invite undesirable elements – alcoholic friends and the like – to their rooms in sheltered schemes, where they can cause nuisance to others. In that situation, the tenant will be in breach of the terms of their tenancy for allowing invited visitors to cause nuisance and annoyance.

In the case of political canvassers, their mere presence on the scheme is unlikely to constitute a breach of tenancy by the tenant who has invited them in. If the canvassers put up racist posters, for example, this could cause nuisance and annoyance and provide grounds for the threat of action against the tenant who invited them into the scheme. It could also constitute a criminal offence.

If there is no nuisance being caused or other breach of tenancy or house rules, you cannot bar the tenants from inviting in the canvassers. However, this does not mean you can't use persuasion.

If a majority of the residents do not want these canvassers coming onto the scheme, the tenant or tenants doing so should be made to appreciate popular opinion and can be asked, in the interests of the feelings of others, not to invite the canvassers onto the scheme.

Nick Billingham, Partner and head of housing management litigation at law firm Devonshires

This is an interesting one. The Human Rights Act would only become relevant if the landlord failed to take action under existing race relations legislation, or where a tenant felt that their rights under Article 5 of the 1998 Act to Liberty and Security had been breached by such canvassing.

More likely would be action under the Race Relations Act to prevent the harassment of one tenant by the actions of another – in this case, by inviting racist canvassers/material into the sheltered housing.

It is interesting to note that the Human Rights Act upholds the right to freedom of speech (Articles 9 and 10) and of assembly (Article 11) which, although subject to other caveats, such as impinging on the rights of others, allows political parties that espouse what could be argued to be racist views to operate. Once an election is declared, this includes leafleting and canvassing households that form part of the electoral register.

At least one local authority has successfully prosecuted the British National Party, but I understand the action was brought under legislation banning flyposting rather than racial harassment.

If the canvassers are coming from a recognised political party such as the BNP, any objection to the canvassing would have to be on the grounds that the leaflets, posters or whatever was inciteful of racial hatred or likely to cause offence and/or racial harassment.

I'm sure the local police would take an interest in the potential correlation between racist canvassing and any rise in reports of racial harassment, and consequently, if a housing association became aware of an increase in such activity, the police should be informed.

Philip Dinham, North-east regional manager, Crime Concern