Client is part of a houseshare of a 3bedroom house rented on a joint tenancy with one other tenant (his late wife's brother). He has two children. It has been the customer of the household that client pays 2/3rds of the rent and other tenant pays 1.3rd as clients 2 kids occupy the third bedroom. HB have said that as a joint tenant client would only get benefit based on responsibility for half the rent. However, when brother-in-law last his job the base brother-in-laws HB liability for 1/3rd of the rent. This seems a perverse decision. What is your view of this?

Appeal. The number of persons liable is not, in itself, the correct test, for determining the level of apportionment.

HBR 12(5) states:
-----------------------
Where more than one person is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling, the payments specified in paragraph (1) shall be apportioned for the purpose of calculating the eligible rent for each such person having regard to all the circumstances, in particular, the number of such persons and the proportion of rent paid by each such person.
-----------------------

Sounds as if the LA has considered the full circumstances for one claim, but then conveniently ignored them on another claim. Based on the info given, I would fully expect a Tribunal to overturn the LA's decision.

Regards