|
Hmmmm... I'm a bit wary about responding to this thread as the info so far gives a strong indication that there is much more to this case. However....
The question of whether the L/L lives at the address is one of fact. So, all the normal issues relating to occupancy arise (irrespective of HBR 9 issues).
A number of questions spring to mind....
1) On what basis is the LA saying the L/L lives (plain English) at the property in question? Even allowing for those LAs who just make decisions on fairly flimsy evidence, it seems odd for them to be so decisive if the L/L does indeed live elsewhere. If the L/L really does live elsewhere, this part of the argument is surely easily resolved by giving the LA the L/L's actual address. In my view, the L/L's address is a piece of info that the LA can reasonably request.
2) On what legal basis is the sibling charging rent (as he is not the owner of the property)?
3) Who owns the property?
If, on the other hand, you're accepting that the L/L lives at the property, but the argument is that s/he does not "reside in the dwelling", that is an entirely different issue. The following CDs *may* be of use (haven't had time to check for direct relevance):
CH/3017/2005
CH/3656/2004
CH/3217/2005
CH/1923/2004
CH/4702/2003
As an aside, it is also open to argument that there is an important distinction between "reside" & "occupy". Arguably, "reside" is a lesser test than "occupy".
Regards
|
