Sat 18-Nov-06 12:13 AM by shawn

(Edited to replace square with rounded brackets)

Wracking my brains here and not getting far!

Just been told that we have a tenant who has signed a new tenancy with another landlord. She has not moved out of our property yet and so her tenancy with us is continuing, so she is now liable for rent on two properties.

She has apparently told benefits to cancel her claim on our property as she wants to claim on the new property under HB reg 7(8)(c)(ii) i.e. claiming for a period before occupation whilst awaiting the outcome of a social fund loan in connection with the move. Both addresses are within the same LA area - the current address is HA property so HB is paid as a rent allowance, whereas the new address is a council house.

Benefit was already suspended, and today we've been informed that it will be cancelled because they are allowing her request.

Question is, can the claimant do this? I thought reg 7(8)only applied where there was only liability for rent on one address, not where the claimant has chosen to claim benefit on only one address. As the move is within one LA area, am I right in thinking the claim can continue over the change in address and so if she withdraws her claim it would apply to both addresses?

Just to add to this, we are currently receiving direct payments from income support due to rent arrears so I believe HB reg 95(1)(a) should apply and that benefit should carry on being paid direct to us as landlords - but, if the council allows benefit to cease on our property as requested would we have any right of appeal as a landlord?

If anyone has any ideas I'd be really grateful.

Thanks in anticipation.

Hi Alison,

Tricky one. The clmt's position may be arguable. Unless.....

Starting with the wording of HBR 7(6) - the 2 homes provision:

"(6) Where a person is liable to make payments in respect of two (but not more than two) dwellings, he shall be treated as occupying both dwellings as his home only....."

Two aspects. Firstly, it clearly refers to dual liability, not dual HB. Secondly, it states shall. That means, to my mind, if there is dual liablity, the clmt must be treated as occupying both homes, but ONLY if any of the criteria is satisfied.

Logically, it stands to reason that if the clmt cannot satisfy the two homes criteria, s/he can only be treated as occupying one dwelling.

So, which dwelling? The wording of HBR 7(8)(b) is interesting:

"(8) Where a person—
(b) had claimed housing benefit before moving in and either no decision has yet been made on that claim or it has been refused but a further claim has been made or treated as made within 4 weeks of the date on which the claimant moved into the new dwelling occupied as the home; and .........."

I haven't really unravelled it yet, but does this mean HBR 7(8) is only engaged at the beginning of a claim? If that is so, the clmt cannot rely on that provision if simply changing address in the same LA area (as there is no requirement for a new claim - it is just a change of circs).

Does this idea have wings? Guess we'll find out soon enough .

Regards

Kevin, thanks for that. I've never come across this interpretation of the regs before, and thought that an existing liability would exclde the use of 7(8)(b).

As a landlord, is there any scope for an appeal based on the direct payment issues, i.e. that effectively benefit will be paid for the same period but as a rent rebate for another property when there is an existing liability with arrears for which benefit 'shall' be paid to the landlord under 95(1)(a)?

Thanks, Alison

(Sorry about the square brackets thing!)