My reading of the HB regs suggests that payments on account of housing benefit cannot be made where the landlord is a local authority. Surely this can't be right....?

Reg 91 deals with payments on account of rent allowance (benefit for non LA tenants). Reg 91A deals with payments on account of rent rebate (LA tenants), but only for entitlement periods arising before 30/06/1988.

This means that there is no provision for payments on account of rent rebate (for LA tenants). I had hoped to argue breach of statutory duty as the authority in this case have issued a possession summons but not made payments on account. It seems my hopes are dashed.

The commentary to reg 91 in HB/CTB legislation says that the object of payments on account of rent allowance are "to ensure that private tenants do not lose accommodation due to delays in benefit administration..." Does anyone remember the introduction of the HB regs. The implication of this policy intention is that local authorities should not be issuing posession proceedings in cases of benefit delay. Does anyone know if this is right?

If anyone can point me in the right direction with regard to policy intention on the HB scheme or any relevant case-law, or indeed if you can point out that I've missed the blindinly obvious, please let me know. Possession hearing is next Monday.

Thanks.

ony

The LA "shall" make a payment on account for a private tenant. The LA "may" make a payment on account for a council tenant.

Thus for private tenants the LA has a duty to make a payment(mandatory) while for council tenants the LA has a power to make a payment (discretionary).

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul,

Posted my reply before I saw yours. Maybe I've missed something, but I can't find any provision that allows payment on account for rent rebate..... Er,what have I missed?

Regards

Sorry Tony

Forget the above I'm talking rubbish. Completely misread the reg'. Teach me not to try to do two things at once.

But have you seen the story on the news section regrding this issue.

Regards
Paul

Tony,

Correct - payment(s) on account only applies to rent allowances and has done ever since April 1988 (when the guts of the current scheme took effect).

However, based on my (albeit relatively limited) experience of LA possession/ benefit cases, possession is only normally granted where the clmt has contributed to delays, or failed to provide info, or is shown to have used benefit claims/appeals as a delaying tactic.

If the LA is pursuing the hearing in the knowledge of an outstanding benefit claim, I'd be very surprised if there is not more to the case than has been stated.

Regards

You've missed nothing Kevin, its me!

Paul

Thanks Guys.

I don't think I've missed anything. It seems that the LA are just being over zealouse. I was hoping to be able to make out a case for strike out or counter-claim, but it looks as though I'm going to have to reqeust an adjournment.

I would still be interested to hear from others about the policy intention regarding payments on account. If the Government thought that only private tenants needed protection from eviction in benefit delay cases, they must have believed there were already safeguards for LA tenants....? Maybe I'll write to DWP and see what they say...