I am currently advising a client who has been refused HB on the basis of the above regulation.

Is anyone aware of any case law on it?

It seems to me, the exception in that reg must refer to the situation, such as my clients, where the house is sold to pay off massive debts and forestall repossession, to a person who allows the client to become a tenant (otherwise, I can see little point in the exception), but I can find no guidance on the topic at all. I've looked in Neligans

The landlord is apparently surprised as he has tenants in other parts of the country who haven't had a problem once they've shown the debts they had to pay off ...

Anyone got any thoughts?

thanks

Claire

Claire

Have a look at CH/3853/2001, paras 10-17. It does not go into a lot of detail but outlines the idea of the claimant being under a practical compulsion to sell, which does not exclude the possibility of a moral obligation to sell.

Regards
Paul

thank you.

a google search of that case led not only to it, but to related matters as well.

Did a search in rightsnet briefcase for keyword 'Regulation 7(1)(h)' specifying Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as 'benefit type'.

Came up with CH/1586/2004 in which Commissioner Levenson specifically considers issues raised by Regulation 7(1)(h).

I'm not sure if the decision will be that useful from your client's point of view as, in this case, the commissioner upholds the appeal by the Secretary of State on the basis that the tribunal should have investigated other avenues that might have helped the claimant in not relinquishing ownership of her dwelling, such as the possibility of her securing employment.

thanks

happily (at least for the claim, if not for them) in my case my client and his wife are both in long term ill health

In addition to the CDs already quoted, the following have also considered HBR 7(1)(h) (some covering different aspects):

CH/0396/2002
CH/0716/2002 (relates to pre 1999 reg - no 5 yr rule; but the rest is valid)

CH/1278/2002
CH/3616/2003 (probably the least relevant to this thread)


All of the above (bar 3616) are on the Commissioners' website (www.osscsc.gov.uk)

To add to nevip's reply, it's worth noting that a moral obligation won't (normally) be enough on it's own. At para 16, the Commissioner clearly links any moral obligation as having to result in a practical compulsion (see para 16).

So long as you can show either a legal OR practical compulsion, HB should not be refused under HBR 7(1)(h) and I'd be pretty confident at Tribunal. Just a small aside: the 5-yr rule is an exception and therefore it is for the clmt to show s/he falls within that exception; not for the LA to show s/he does not.

Regards

thanks again.

Guess i should have improved my search terms!

3616 is available @ http://www.hbinfo.org/menu2/comdecs/ch_3616_2003.shtml

Just out of interest, we as a Housing Association, occassionally fall into this exemption when we operate a mortgage to rent (previously known as mortgage rescue) scheme. One of the conditions is that the property is at treat of reposession.