1. In 1990 Mrs T and Mr G purchase a property 50/50.
2. The property is always let through a company CBG Ltd of which Mr G’s son is an equal 50% shareholder with Mrs T.
3. CBG Ltd pays rent for the property to Mrs T and Mr G.
4. CBG Ltd sublets the property to tenants, providing tenancies as CBG Ltd – not as letting agent for Mrs T or Mr G and Housing Benefit is paid as such direct to CBG Ltd.
5. In 1990, Mr G dies and the property passes to Mr G’s son, G junior.
6. The property continues to be let under the same arrangement.
7. There is no dispute over ownership/title and which Mr G has via probate and which is accepted by Revenue, Banks, Building Societies, Mr and Mrs T etc as his father’s estate is wound up.
8. In 2003, Mr G (junior) and Mrs T’s husband (a solicitor, employed in the company CBG Ltd) have a serious disagreement.
9. The property is let to Tenants who have an assured tenancy with CBG Ltd and who have rent paid direct to CBG Ltd.
10. Mr and Mrs T now say that Mr G Junior has not produced evidence to them of title (although previously accepted) and will not accept the assurance of Mr G’s solicitor who has the probate.
11. The Housing benefit Department also have a copy of the probate and Land Registry entry which show Mrs T and the late Mr G as owners. (Deeds not changed to Mr G junior as Mr T said no need to at time of death of Mr G)
12. Mrs T now states that she is cancelling the “management agreement” and that she has sole title as trustee to run the property.
13. Against the wishes of the tenant, without any consultation and unknown to Mr G, Mr and Mrs T write to Housing Benefit confirming that Mrs T is the sole Trustee and that Housing benefit is to be paid only to her and that “she alone” will distribute any income.
14. The tenants have no tenancy with Mrs T but with the company CBG Ltd.
15. There is therefore no relevant change in circumstances.
16. The tenant wants the Housing Benefit to be paid to CBG Ltd – with whom they have a tenancy.
17. Mr G junior, wants to receive the Housing Benefit and will account for it properly via the accountant for CBG Ltd.
18. Mr T is renowned for litigation and is demanding payment to his wife.

19. I believe that payment should not be made to Mrs T but to CBG Ltd with whom there is an assured tenancy.

20. As a last resort the tenant will accept the benefit himself but is then placed in the middle of a dispute; he requires it to be paid to the company CBG Ltd..

21. The claimant has confirmed in writing that he does not want the benefit to be paid to Mr and Mrs T., but to CBG Ltd.

22. To whom should housing benefit make the payment?

23. Are the actions of Mr and Mrs T (a solicitor) fraudulent in that they have provided inaccurate facts to divert housing benefit against the wishes of the claimant and have done so, without consultation or any written agreement from the claimant?

Sorry, the date of death at number 5 should have been 2000, not 1990.

The info’ below is a general view. Each case must be looked at on its facts.

The position, as I see it, is this. Landlord A leases property P to company B. As B is not an ‘individual’ then B cannot be an assured tenant of A (section 1 of the Housing Act 1988) and would have little statutory protection from eviction by A.

If in the agreement B had power to grant a tenancy to C then C would probably have a proprietary interest in the property, which would probably bind A. Therefore if A terminated the agreement with B then C would have an assured tenancy from A.

The license agreement between A and B would probably allow cancellation of the agreement at any time by either party with suitable notice. Until that is done then A is not the landlord of C and has no right (unless nominated by the tenant C) to have HB paid to them.

Not until the agreement between A and B is brought to an end does A stand in direct relationship to C as that of immediate landlord and thus have rights to receive HB under HB legislation.

As to fraud, I do not know enough about the facts of the case or any of the parties intentions to form a view but if a party knowingly misled another with a view to gaining some form of advantage, pecuniary or otherwise, then fraud may have been committed.

Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul,

I agree with you.

The matter has perhaps moved even further in that it has been suggested that the Local Authority should not in any case have entered into any correspondence with Mr or Mrs T, as there was no authority from the claimant to do so. Discussion about methods of benefit payment should not have been entered in to until such time as authority was received; it would appear!

However, your help with regard to the other issue is appreciated and noted.

Regards

Ray