There could be a liability between the daughter and the mother if you could show that there was a verbal agrement to create a legally binding contract (perhaps a tall order because there is little prospect of the mother taking the daughter to court in order to enforce any purported contract)
Unlawful subletting was criminalised in the social sector, but not in the private sector, so you are not supporting a crime by paying HB
I don' have the references to hand but I have cited a number of commisioners and UT decisions in other threads where it has been held that the lawfulness of the claimants occupation may not be a bar to paying HB
There is no liability between the daughter and the primary landord or the agent, but you can treat her as liable
I dont share Chris Robbins "moral" stance here and I think the mother is only seeking to redress an injustice that is a feature of the housing market and the failure of successive goverments to provide adequate support for social housing.
