Reply To: contrived and non commercial ? help please


Regarding the non-commerciality of the tenancy, it might be worth having a look at CH/0663/2003.

The Commisoner decided the liability was not comemrcial because the arrangement was ‘unique’ (e.g. it would not have been open to any other tenant on the open market), and the rental agreement was just a small part of a family arrangement to benefit the tenant.

Regarding proving the liability was “contrived”, you need to [b:d2e84c5bdd]prove[/b:d2e84c5bdd] that one of the parties intended to [b:d2e84c5bdd]abuse[/b:d2e84c5bdd] the HB system. This can be very difficult to prove. There are a couple of points I think are relevant:

-was the ‘dominant purpose’ of the tenancy to obtain HB, and not to secure accomodation for the tenant?
– the the tenant, landlord, or person(s) advising them have enough knowledge of the HB stystem to allow them to ‘abuse’ it?

If you give me you e-mail address, I can send you some of my notes on this subject.