I have client who sold his house to a HA when was falling into arrears with mortgage approx. 2 years ago. Lives with his mother who paid toward mortgage. Client is now sole tenant of the property. Paid own rent until this year when lost job due to health problems. LA refused application for HB as previously owned. Also refused mothers application for HB on grounds she is not tenant and therefore not liable for rent. I had hoped that this avenue would give them access to at least part of the rent being paid.

2 issues - I am assisting them to obtain evidence of necessity of selling property (they unhelpfully shredded all documents after sale!). This is taking some time and so want to know if can challenge LA on decision that mother does not have liability for rent. I have always understood that a claimant does not have to have name on Tenancy Agreement to be liable. They have been living off savings and credit cards for some months and this is not sustainable.

Does anyone have any suggestions of arguments I could use with the council?

You could try arguing that it would be "reasonable" to treat the mother as liable under Reg 8(c)(ii) (has the LA explained why it isn't?) However the caselaw does not seem that helpful. Your client has been refused HB under Reg 9(1)(h). There is a Commissioner's decision to the effect that it would not be reasonable to treat someone other than the tenant as liable just to circumvent Reg 9 (Reg 9(1)(d) in that case).

Obviously the other course (which you are pursuing) is to show that your client had to sell to stay in the dwelling. The LA may say that this means possession proceedings were being taken, but previous decisions suggest that only a "practical compulsion" to sell needs to exist (eg mounting mortgage arrears with no prospect of them being cleared). It does not need to be a "legal compulsion".

The definition of owner is to be found in reg 2(1) and it is the person entitled to dispose of the fee simple. In other words, the owner of the freehold. The reg was amended to take effect from 1/10/07 to exclude leaseholders under long tenancies also, so if he only had the leasehold and disposed of it prior to 1/10/07 than he should not fall foul of the reg.