Hi

I have a client, a lone parent, who is unable to get HB. When she separated from her husband he agreed to keep up the mortgage payments on the proviso that she agree to the property being sold. My client agreed to this, seeing that she could not afford to stay there and manage the mortgage.

The property has been sold and the buyer has allowed my client to stay in the property as a tenant. The Local Authority say that she can't have HB because she sold the property of her own free will and the mortgage never went into arrears. The LA says that giving HB to a former owner of property is subject to conditions and that she needs to show that she looked at all her options to keep the property eg getting a job, getting a lodger. They also seem to be saying that if she was renting a different property then she may get HB.

Any suggestions? Thanks

While I can understand why the LA reached their conclusion, I'm not sure it was correct. At least not based on the info in your post.

I'm assuming the decision was made in accordance with HBR 7(1)(h).

If so, the LA have decided that your client owned the property within the last 5 years AND could have continued to occupy the same property without relinquishing ownership.

It seems to me that the crux is whether or not your client HAD to relinquish ownership to stay in the property. The issue is "compulsion". If your client had either a LEGAL or PRACTICAL compulsion to sell, then HB is payable. If the "compulsion" was merely moral, then the LA would be correct.

There are three CDs in particular that should assist, but it sounds as if the LA are already aware of those. They are:

CH/3853/2001 (assists with "compulsion").
CH/0396/2002 ("motivation" is irrelevant).
CH/1278/2002 (may or may not help).

The first two are on the Commissioners site (www.osscsc.gov.uk). If someone can confirm an e-mail address to send 1278 to Rightsnet, I'll do that as soon as I have a moment.

It's worth bearing in mind that for HBR 7 cases, it has been acknowledged in more than one CD that there will, on occasion, be "rough justice" in that HBR 7 is designed to prevent both actual abuse and the RISK of abuse. See, for example, CH/4546/2002 (points 36 to 39) - also on the Commissioners site.


Regards

Just crossed my mind that the LA may have relied on other aspects of HBR 7.

1) If your client and former partner previously lived at the property as a couple, HB will not be payable - HBR 7(1)(c). This is irrespective of any other circs.

2) If the landlord is the father of any children of your client, again HB will not be payable - HBR 7(1)(d). This is also irrespective of any other circs.


For information, another poster on this forum was looking for cases involving the above two provisions for HBR 7 - they were looking to make a case that the provisions were contrary to the HRA. However, to my knowledge, the Regs currently stand.

Hope this helps.

Regards

in fact .... CH 1278 2002 is also on the cmmrs site

fantastic, thanks for your help.