Think Tank

It doesn't matter whether you work for a municipal authority or a housing association; it is reasonable to expect the values of both organisations to be commensurate with the nature of the service being delivered. If what you are saying is true and you wish to take some action, you could find out whether the association has a public interest disclosure policy and procedure (sometimes known as a whistleblowing policy). The Housing Corporation expects all housing associations to have one in place and if you have evidence to support the allegations you are making, you should consider using it.

You must be able to support any such allegations with factual evidence and you must be prepared to stand by your claims. Making unsupported accusations of such a serious nature without factual evidence to support them could be viewed by your employer as vexatious and could lead to disciplinary action. However, an employer who dismisses an employee for invoking a public interest disclosure could lose a claim for unfair dismissal if the employee has acted properly and can demonstrate that they have evidence to support their course of action.

Sandy Staff, Human resources management consultant at Conway Staff Partnership

You must seriously consider whether you wish to challenge the culture. Formal routes include taking out a grievance or using the organisation's "whistleblowing" policy if it has one. Union representatives should be able to give the best local advice on this.

Informal action includes telling colleagues if they are using offensive language and asking them to stop, as I am sure we would all do if we were working with people who were using racist terms, for example.

Direct action, such as writing to the local newspaper, could leave you exposed to disciplinary action from your employer, and I would urge you to get advice first.

Expert help and advice is available from Public Concern at Work, an independent authority on whistleblowing that provides free help to people in your position. It also advises organisations on how to create a culture where it is safe and accepted for staff to raise their concerns that something is going wrong. See www.pcaw.co.uk or call the telephone helpline on 020 7404 6609.

Nick Murphy, Executive director of housing, communities and regeneration at Southampton council

Some staff who have been through stock transfers have commented that the working environment becomes less political, and takes on more of a business focus, but there is no reason that such a change should reduce the commitment to tenant services (arguably, it ought to increase it). Referring routinely to tenants in derogatory terms, even in the relative privacy of the office, should be unacceptable in either workplace.

That said, it is inevitable that working practices will change over time. Perhaps the news item to which you object was an example of this. Your chief executive's willingness to defend it publicly suggests a difference in approach between you, but that does not mean that the chief executive is any less committed to the values you support.

I suggest you continue to voice your concerns, in as positive and constructive a way as possible. But also try to show your colleagues that you are receptive to change.

John Bryant, Policy officer at the National Housing Federation

Stock transfer and the non-secure tenant
I work at a Housing Aid Centre that covers a number of local authorities that have transferred their stock to a housing association. There seems to be some confusion among new stock transfer landlords, and in the advice sector, regarding the status of tenants who were non-secure tenants, in non-hostel accommodation, at the time of transfer. The uncertainty becomes particularly problematic if possession proceedings are being taken. Please could you clarify the security of tenure of a non-secure tenant after transfer?

The position of non-secure tenants at the time of a stock transfer can be problematic. Normally, non-secure tenants housed under Part VII of the 1996 Housing Act would be moved by the council before transfer so they did not transfer across and remained tenants of the council in question.

However if, for whatever reason, non-secure tenants do transfer, their status inevitably changes when the registered social landlord becomes owner (just as the status of the secure tenants will change).

If the RSL treats transferring non-secure tenants as their tenants after transfer then they will become assured shorthold tenants by operation of law unless the RSL states that they are to be non-shorthold tenants.

If the council enters into an arrangement with the RSL for the continued housing of the tenants this could be done under section 208 of the 1996 act. However, in order to take advantage of section 208, the non-secure tenancies would have to be terminated by notice to quit before the transfer, before a new non-assured tenancy was granted by the RSL pursuant to arrangements agreed with the council – otherwise the RSL risks creating fully-assured tenancies.

As to possession proceedings after transfer, if the non-secure tenant has become an assured shorthold tenant the usual process would be service of a notice requiring possession by the RSL followed by possession proceedings using the accelerated procedure. If a new non-assured tenancy was created post-transfer, notice to quit followed by a standard possession claim would be appropriate. What would not work would be for any existing proceedings brought by the council to be continued by the RSL. In those circumstances, the proceedings would have to be withdrawn and fresh proceedings begun.

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

How should I confirm tenancy succession?
In the case of succession, what is the best way of confirming that the person succeeded the tenancy? I presume there is no need for the creation of a new tenancy agreement? If a tenant has a sole tenancy and would like to make it a joint one with either husband or wife, how should one proceed? Is it in the form of assignment or should there be a new tenancy agreement?

When someone succeeds you should not grant a new tenancy agreement: a letter to the successor and a file copy should be sufficient. I have once seen a form of tenancy agreement that had a space below the signature for successions to be noted with the successor and the landlord both signing – if you are redoing your tenancy agreement you may want to consider this.

Where a sole tenancy is being changed to a joint tenancy, this should be done as an assignment from the sole tenant to the joint tenants. The consent of the landlord may be needed. Some tenants may have a right to do this if the new joint tenant is someone who would be entitled to succeed on death – secure tenants have this right and some assured tenants are given this in their tenancy agreements.

However, many landlords operate a more informal procedure of simply agreeing that the joint tenancy exists by accepting it in writing. If this is done, it is important that the letter makes clear that both joint tenants will be jointly and severally liable – that is to say, if one of them leaves, the other is liable for the whole rent.

Catherine Hand, Partner at solicitor Jenkins & Hand

What if the fair rent is wrong on the paperwork?
We have 40 flats being built and one of our tenants, currently housed in another property, has asked to move to these flats on completion. She is a registered tenant. We have been advised that she remains a registered tenant but the rent officer cannot register a "fair rent" until the tenant has moved in; they would, however, be prepared to look at the flat before check-in to get the paperwork under way. The tenant would continue to pay the same rent as her existing one, until a fair rent has been registered.

My question is with regard to the assured tenancy agreement: within the agreement of the new flat, a rent of, say, £74 a week would be specified incorporating a breakdown of rent, service charge and water rates. This would be payable in advance of the Monday of each week, and subject to increase as set out in the agreement. The tenant is currently paying £53.50 a week and this figure, as instructed by the rent officer, would continue to be collected until "registration". What, then, happens if, having typed up the agreement with a rent of £74 (which is the rent officer's suggestion), the tenant signs the agreement and the rent is then registered at, say, £70 per week?

The rent officer usually only has jurisdiction over secure tenancies or Rent Act tenancies, but where the rent officer does have jurisdiction the following wording can be added into the tenancy to allow for any possible changes: "or such rent as specified by the rent officer".

Rosemary Hart, Partner and housing specialist at law firm Trowers & Hamlins