lThe owner of a social housing unit cannot believe that he has been released from his obligations towards his landlord because he has abandoned the premises in which his descendants have settled. Otherwise, he runs the risk of suffering the same mishap as Mr.
In June 2001, he and his wife rented an apartment from the social landlord France Habitation, which later became Seqens. They occupy it with their daughter A, born in 1989, and their son B, born in 2000. In 2011, Mr. . On 17 June 2016, M.me X, who now lives there with his only son, dies of cancer.
Sir, you could, however, waive this exclusivity, request the transfer of the contract for the benefit of your son, who wishes to remain on the premises, and then give your notice.
The young man would be entitled to transfer under Article 14 of the Act of 6 July 1989, which aims to improve rental relations, because he lived in the premises for a year before his mother’s death. But he would certainly not meet the conditions of resources provided for in Article 40 of the same Act, since he is still a minor and does not work.
Wobbly solution
His sister would meet the conditions of resources, but not the one of cohabitation for a year. On June 22, 2016, the family opted for an unstable solution: Mr. “sole tenant of the apartment”, although he does not occupy it. His daughter and her husband come to live there with the young man, although they have no right to do so. They usually pay rent, 685 euros.
Unfortunately, in January 2018 the landlord carried out, as required, an investigation into the tenants’ income. Sir. The landlord then applies a “income supplement” to the tenants. solidarity rent “, known as “overpayment”, provided for by law for those whose resources exceed the authorized limit by more than 20% or who do not provide the requested information. The new rent amounts to 2,633 euros.
A, who cannot afford to take over, only abstains from the old. The landlord therefore summons Mr. A. In 2019, he claimed 56,387 euros from him. The children voluntarily intervene in the proceedings and request that the lease be transferred, retrospectively, to B. They claim that the latter should have benefited from it after the death of their mother. The court opposes this, insofar as the father never gave his notice. It condemns the latter to pay his debt in instalments.
You have 26.68% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
