When a tenant gets full HB paid direct to them, can a landlord request the payments direct if the customer has only paid 50% of the benefit? The books say 'equivalent' to 8 weeks which doesn't really help. So does it mean 8 weeks of the full HB (i.e. tenant not paying a penny) or 8 weeks in which the tenant has paid a bit, but not all the full HB?

For example, Mr Smith's rent is £100.00 per week, he pays £50 of his £100 benefit to his landlord, his account after 8 weeks is £400.

In this instance, could the landlord request payment direct on the proviso that the tenant has not paid his full rent for 8 weeks? Or will the LA request that he has to be £800 in arrears, which in essence is 8 weeks but will probably take 16 weeks?

The regs do refer to 8 weeks "rent" arrears not Hb.

Say the tenant/claimant was only entitled to £1 per week and their rent is £100 per week; the regs do not direct the La to pay a landlord when the rent arrears are £8.

The La should consider whether it is in the interests of the claimant to pay the landlord should a request be made by the landlord at any time.

Thu 17-May-07 12:15 PM by shawn

(Edited to remove underlining)

For the "8-week" rule to be considered, the arrears must be equal to the equivalent of the GROSS rent charge.

So, 8 weeks arrears in this case must be £800, or more. Even if arrears of a lesser amount have accumulated over a period of 8 weeks, HBR 95(1)(b) won't bite until / unless the arrears amount to at least £800. This approach was confirmed in CH/4108/2005 - see para 5. Also see an earlier thread:

www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4696&mode=full

But, I see no reason why a L/L could not, separately, make a case under HBR 96(1)(b) and ask the LA to pay the L/L anyway. If the LA refuse, the decision is fully appealable (DAR 16 & para 1(d) of the Schedule to the DARs). In making such a request, a L/L would (in my opinion) be well advised to request that the LA suspends further payments while the issue is under consideration - see below for authority. Obviously, if the positions are reversed, then a clmt would make a similar request for suspension / change of payee.

As confirmed in recently issued CH/1821/2006 & CH/3629/2006, HB cannot be paid twice for the same period. But those same case held that payments can lawfully be suspended pending the outcome of a "who is HB payable to?" question (presumably to avoid paying the "wrong" party in the meantime).

Hope the above helps.

Thanks for the HTML tidy up.