Julian Hobson

Is there a difference between the liability “created to take advantage” which is presumably the fact that there is a liability at all AND the rent level agreed to ?

I don’t see any problem with individual homeless people being offered accomodation at a rent which the LA knows can be supported in full by the HB scheme without any shortfall between the Hb paid and the subsidy received.

The alternative for many LA’s using B&B accomodation is the same is practical effect save for the question of finance where subsidy above the threshold is reduced subject to the overall cap.

The ONLY way this can work so that subsidy is paid upto cap would be for the LA to be the L/L and for thgs to be rent rebate. You say that the LA has full nomination rights, this seems odd given that you are the L/L !

The literature isn’t worth the paper its written on if (as appears to be the case) the whole thing is a mish mash of the two schemes. I can see why they have put the proposal in those terms but it would never (and could never) work that way.

Put simply the LA lease the property for ten years and pay the full whack for each property for each week to Lloyds TSB / Orchard & Shipman. They then let those properties to whoever they have a duty to rehouse irrespective of the HB prospects. What then matters is the liability for each individual tenancy and on the face of it reg 9(1)(l) does not apply. Who does and does not get or keep a tenancy is of no concern to Lloyds TSB / Orchard & Shipman as they have already been paid.

For the most part what you have described is really a bog standard out of the box leasing scheme that happens all over the place. How its been described to you, with a nomination process just can’t work. That is rent allowance and subject to RO control.