Without knowing the HA’s policies on allocation of shared equity properties, I couldn’t say if this was in breach of their policies, which would be the main unlawful point.

If the HA is insisting that the seller uses a particular conveyancer, this is completely outside what they can lawfully do. And if the HA is saying they will offer a shared equity place if the seller sells to a particular private third party, that sounds, on the face of it, potentially unlawful, depending on what the arrangement actually is. I would expect any HA that did this to be in a very large amount of trouble.

But, given that a lot, although not all, of ex-LA property is going to get at the low end of market prices (and will be dropping like a stone at the moment), it is not necessarily an unreasonable approach if the HA is loking to buy the properties. There can be, of course, no obligation on the sellers to buy a shared equity place, if they get enough to buy elsewhere or if they want to find a place to rent for themselves. If they don’t want to sell, they don’t have to.

Frankly, Chris, what you have heard doesn’t sound wholly right, or at least not the full picture. If you find out more, do get back to us.

The intentional homeless caveat would of course fail on intervening settled accomodation. Where it might get interesting would be on issues of affordability of the subsequent accommodation, which is why the scheme needs good selection procedures…

And, as you well know, I’m not suggesting any changes in the underoccupation rules at all – not my place ;-)

You’re read by Nic Madge, NL, so imagine who else is watching.

I did read that article as a matter of fact – in a great little Spanish cafe in Pimlico who have all the papers in for the punters, as it happens – and it was just so badly written, and so spitefully posited, as to cause even the most dyed in the wool disgusted from Tunbridge Wells to cringe in their crunchy nuts.

But there is not much wrong with the scheme as far as I can see. Waiting lists are long and young families deserve a decent sized place to live.

And in any case, any contributor to this blog would surely make mincemeant of that little intentionally homeless caveat:-

“As a RESULT of my client giving up her council property m’lud????”

The amendment to the Housing Act suggested by Laws LJ in Newport CC v Charles would make little difference. It would only apply to underoccupying successors and only be to vary the timescale in which the LA can seek possession in certain circumstances. It has nothing to do with underoccupation in general.

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/housing/housingoptions/ctwmove/cash-incentive-scheme.cfm

The scandal is that it is not news.

I personally know a few underoccupiers, lucky them. One is a single person in a six-bed. She rents the other rooms out and declares it all so no problem there.

But, if the Housing Act is amended in line with Lord Whassisface’s comments Newport City Council v Charles, underoccupiers may be forced to move to smaller premises, and the need for cash incentives may disappear.