We have a few cases of HB refusing to pay because they don't accept the address that the landlord has given the tenant. In one case they have checked Land Registry and state that the tenanted property isn't owned by the landlord. They say that the tenant has to provide proof of where the landlord lives - bank statements, official documents etc. The tenant isn't able to provide this and all they know is this is the address the landlord has given. I can't find any regulations that state the tenant has to prove where the landlord lives before HB can be paid. Has anyone else come accross this situation or have any advice?

This is one of those situations where there are two sides to the argument.

There is no direct requirement that a L/L address must be "proven" - CH/257/2005 is partly relevant to that issue.

HOWEVER, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the LA wants to ensure that there is a genuine liability on which HB is rightfully due. And, the whereabouts of a L/L, in connunction with other matters, *may* be relevant in determining so-called reg 9 issues. These include whether or not the tenancy (or other agreement) is on a commercial basis and/or whether the liability has been created to take advantage of the HB scheme.

The difficulty here is that the stated L/L is not, apparently, the owner of the premises. In such circumstances, I can fully understand that the LA wants to verify that the L/L exists in reality. However, I don't see that it is reasonable to ask a clmt to ask a L/L for L/L bank accounts etc. Is the LA suggesting that the L/L also does not live at the address that has been given?

I would suggest appealing against the LA decision on the grounds that the evidence requested has not REASONABLY been requested AND that an address for a landlord has been provided AND that the liability is (presumably) enforceable. Obviously, if the L/L is also not living at the address s/he has provided, that will make any appeal much more difficult.

Try asking the HB..... to ask the Council Tax Dept... who pays the c/tax when the property is not tenanted.... what you may have hear is sub-let.... the owner lets the property to a tenant... who then sublets to someone else without the owners knowledge.... can make a nice profit this way.... and its not illegal