A RSL has leased a property from another RSL because they were short of decants for one of their tenants. An application was made for HB. The tenant indicated in the claim form that they wanted the HB to be paid to the RSL who leased the property. HB was refused on the basis that they had no rent liability to the RSL from whom the property was leased. I would appreciate any help in finding a way around this, or are they wrong in this decision.

Willie

Can't give you a definitive answer from the information you give as its not detailed enough. But generally speaking, the tenant's relationship to the superior landlord is not relevant, neither, subject to certain exceptions such as fraud etc, are the legal relations between the superior and inferior landlords.

The determining question is are there legal relations between the inferior landlord and the tenant which create a legal liability for the tenant to pay rent to the inferior landlord. If so, all other things being equal, then HB is payable.

Although not on point, you may wish to check out Quadrant Housing v Bruton where it was decided that although the inferior landlord by the terms of the lease had no legal power to grant teneancies, nevertheless because Mr Bruton had exlusive possession for rent for a term certain he did hold a tenancy. The principle in this case may, therefore, assist you with your, albeit, different case.

Regards
Paul

This is no different to RSL schemes whereby property is leased from a private landlord by an RSL and then let to homeless families nominated by the local authority (HALS schemes etc.). There is clearly a rental liability incurred by the tenant, and that liability is to whoever actually rents them the accommodation.