Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

Private tenant claims hb. They request pymt to themselves. No indication of rent arrears so LA decides not to make 1st payment to landlord. Does this make the landlord an affected person? Logic and common sense tells me no but i can’t find any regs to back me up. Surely the landlord must have to make some kind of representation first? Any thoughts welcome.

[Kevin D]

[b:ecedbc1bb2]DAR 3(1)(e) applies[/b:ecedbc1bb2].

In summary, a landlord is potentially a person affected where a decision is about who payment is, or is not, to be made to.

new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2/newdmaregs/da03.shtml

Regards

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the reply Kevin – glad I’m not the only one posting at silly hours.

Thats the area of the regs I’ve been looking at for supporting my argument that we do not need to notify the landlord.

On one hand, it could be argued (as our Ombudsman is saying) that I have made a decision under reg 95/96 and that decision is “no – I’m paying the tenant” – if I view it this way, the landlord is a person affected. This just can’t be right as, by default, it would mean landlord notifications would be required for every single new claim we make a decision on, even those where the customer is saying “don’t contact my landlord”. Taking it another step further, it would mean we should be telling the customer about all the regulations we haven’t applied (as there was nothing on their claim to say we should have applied them).

I prefer to look at it by saying [b:d4b302d83d]I have not considered Reg 95/96 [/b:d4b302d83d]as I have had no evidence or representation from anyone that I need to consider these regulations. In which, the landlord isn’t a person affected as I haven’t made a decision under those regs.

Whaddya think?

[Kevin D]

My (tentative) view is that the L/L is only a Person Affected if:

1) the clmt had indicated payment should go to the L/L, but the LA paid the clmt; or

2) the clmt has 8wks+ arrears (but, the LA are under no obligation to proactively establish the level of arrears); or

3) the L/L makes a request for payment to be made to him/her.

If the clmt simply claims and indicates payment should be made to them, I see no basis on which the L/L is a “Person Affected” unless information comes to light which requires active consideration as to whether someone else should be paid.

A quick search produced a couple of CDs where the payee was at issue, but I haven’t checked for relevance.

[b:0cb8eb45a1]CH/3106/2004[/b:0cb8eb45a1] (para 9+)
[b:0cb8eb45a1]CH/4108/2005[/b:0cb8eb45a1] (para 6 may of particular interest)

Regards

[petedavies]

Just to add one to Kevin’s posting:

If the claimant has moved and the LA is aware of any rent arrears. – I think that if this is the situation consideration must be given to paying the LL who then becomes a person affected.

[Author]

Posts