A bit of assistance is required here...

I am currently assisting a claimant who holds an assured tenancy with an RSL and has notified the LA of a change of circumstance (an increase in their rent).

Unfortunately the RSL had failed to provide information that was requested by the LA in order to enable the LA to make a decision on the supersession within the 28 day period as per D&A regs. 7(5)(a)&(b). It was forwarded at a later date therefore the LA has stated that it will only action the rent increase from the following monday of receipt of info.

Is there any way around this as it was not the fault of the claimant in relation to providing requested info to the LA??

the answer can be found in the regulation itself - do you have a copy?

jj

jj

in which part of the regulation do you refer to?

Regards

Keysey2

the one you quoted - reg 7(5)(a) (D & A)

"-where the applicant provides further relevant evidence or information within one month of the date of notification or such longer period of time as the appropriate relevant authority may allow..."



jj

yes, unfortunately the problem is that the LA is not "allowing" any period of time over the inital month as quoted in the reg.

Basically they dont want to pay the increase in rent.

Thanks for all your help.

Regards

Keysey2

keysey2

why wouldn't the LA want to pay the increase in the rent?

are you saying it has an interest in preventing people from obtaining their legal entitlement?

you know that the LA is expected to be _reasonable_and fair?

what was the information it wanted from the RSL, by the way... i assume the claimant was able to notify the rent increase on the basis of her notice of increase from her landlord...?

jj

Under Reg 5(b), the supersession is made on the basis of the original application,the original application being the application for superssession. What evidence did the LA require?

If it was simply documentary corroboration of the rent increase, then I would refer the LA to a couple of now ancient CD's R(I)2/51 and R(SB)33/85 (both on rightsnet) where it was held that there is no need for corroboration in English law.

Dont forget also that in cases like this, no duties are imparted to the RSL, the duties rest on the claimant. (See for example CIS/2057/1998). If the claimant has done everything that can reasonably be expected of him then the LA would be acting unreasonably if it did not allow a longer time to provide the evidence.

There is a right of appeal in these cases. You must use it.

jj

the claimant was able to notify the rent increase on the basis of the notice from landlord.

Historically this LA has been difficult to deal with therefore not displaying reasonableness and fairness very regularly.

The information required was a request for further evidence of the charges included in the rent as the rent increase was over and above an inflationery uplift.

I suppose what I was requesting was some advice in relation to a retort on the LA's original decision based on the regulation in question.

Cheers

keysey2

The LA may know fine well what charges are included in the rent by virtue of the original tenancy agreement submitted with the original claim.

If all the charges are eligible for HB, you can argue that the information is not reasonably required to determine the question.

I will be recommending the appeals route.

Thanks once again for all your help.

Kind Regards

Keysey2

as stainsby advises, your client must use the appeals route, and i'd expect the appeal to succeed, but it really shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

if unreasonableness and unfairness in statutory decision-making is a characteristic of your LA...what is your remit, anyway? - please pardon my ignorance about supported housing consultants - or the company you work for... i don't want to make assumptions...

jj

Let me get this straight:

1. Claimant notifies LA of rent rise.
2. LA write to RSL and request further details.
3. RSL delay sending the further details.
4. LA state that decision is only effective from the date on which they finally got those further details.

Everything in Reg 7(5) is about info requests being made to the applicant for supersession (ie the claimant). None of it is anything to do with the RSL. If the LA did not write to the applicant requesting the further info then....

I can't believe an LA are seriously suggesting than a relevant c of c notified on time can result in a supersession from a later date on the basis that a LANDLORD has failed to comply with a duty which Reg 7(5) does not even place them under....

Time to go home.

This is what we have to deal with....case dismissed!!