Can anybody tell me if HB would be granted if a relation bought a property off a relative. Relative stills resides in the property and the property used to be her marital home (partner since left). The relative bought the property to save his relative from becomming homeless after the relative recently lost her teenage son and came into finacial difficulty.

Non-commercial/contrived? but the property was bought to secure accommodation, not to take advantage of system and HB will not cover mortgage the relation had to take out to buy the home, so surely advantage is not an issue.

Had a very similar case just a few weeks ago. Because we could show that the client could not have continued to live there wihtout giving up ownership, he was awarded HB with no problem.

He too was in financial difficulty but for different reasons than your client.

Good Luck!

Nicky

The short answer, non-comm and possible contrivance 'might' be an issue... However, the answer to both of those problems lies with another reg that appears to be at issue, and is of more concern for your client than either of then above.... Reg 7 (1) (h)...

7 (1)(h) says that anyone who used to be a former owner of their property, can not get HB, UNLESS..."<...> he satisfies the appropriate authority that he or his partner could not have continued to occupy that dwelling without relinquishing ownership".

Para 13 of CH/3853/2001 reads, "Regulation 7(1)(h) is mandatory in its terms. There is no scope for interpreting it as conferring a discretion on the local authority or the appeal tribunal" (para 13). So the questions you need to ask/answer is, why did your client consider that he had to sell his home? What was the level of mortgage debt? Were possession proceedings underway by the lender? It will not be enough for your client to show that in later years he would have been re-possessed etc. he must be able to demonstrate that he would (on balance of probabilities), have been repossessed...

See also CH/2404/2002, CH/716/2002, & CH/563/2003 for other reg 7 (1) (h) cases...

Reg 7 (1)(a)(not commercial) might be an issue if perhaps the property was sold where the 'tenant' retains an legal, (or equitable) title in the property, (eg when the property is sold, a given amount/percentage is given to the 'tenant')...

Reg 7 (1)(l) (contrivance) might be an issue if perhaps the property was sold to the relative substantially below market value, or where perhaps was 'gifted' or where for instance no other valuations were done, or where the property was sold for the amount of the outstanding mortgage etc... Basically where the 'tenant' did not do everything 'reasonable' to obtain the best selling price..

I am not saying that any part of reg 7 actually applies, just that they would (should, depending on the quality of the LA decision maker), be in issue, and you would therefore need to know about the above to make a successful argument to the LA, or Tribunal etc.

Though you did not say, I am also guessing that the purchaser of the property does not live with the 'tenant' and/or is not a close relative, as otherwise you have reg 7 (1) (b) to consider...

I've a similar case. Brother had own home and sister moved in as she was on DLA and needed care. Both on benefits. Lender commenced possession proceedings. A relative agreed to purchase the property as a business proposition but allow the two of them stay as long as they could get HB (got tenancy agreement). LA refused both claims using Reg 7(1)(l). I've challenged using 7(1)(h) but wondered whether there was anything else as they've also got a few issues with the sister's claim which was mentioned in a covering letter they sent to me with the copy decision notice:-

no payments been made for the rent
sister related to landlord
sister previously non dep at address
rent charged is very high
claimant on low income so LA have considered how they can make up the shortfall.

I think I've covered each of the above but the only one that concerns me is I wasn't sure abt the non dep issue. I assume LA are using 7(1)(g) even though this is subject to para (1B).
Any help gratefully received