ASSOCIATED BUSINESS WOMAN IN RENTING PROPERTIES RENTS TO SON

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39538
    VIKKIE
    Participant

    Do you think I’m wasting my time.

    Hi guys we have a new hb claim form a customer in receipt of ESA.

    Customer is renting from his Mum who is an associated business woman renting a large numbner of properties out.

    Claims comes in with an shorthold tenancy agreement and we ask a series of questions to him and his Mum.

    Mum states he is in arrears with rent from tenancy start date not paid a penny (ok I can cope with that as he hasn’t had the money to) she would not collect any possible shortfall in between rent charged and lha as her son is in debts, she has said she would not take any action if hb was not paid at all, when asked if she would rent the property to anyone else she has said not at the present time as my son and his girlfriend need somewhere to live and she would not ask him to leave if HB was not paid at all??

    Mum has rented property out before to several tenants.
    Rent is £375 pcm there is no mortgage on property at all.
    Son lived with his mum before moving to he addrss in quiestion.

    HB team have refused on commeciality saying it is an arms length agreement and son has now appealed saying we have acted illeagally as his sister lives in Derby and they are paying her rent to his Mum?!

    I did agree with hb team at first as landlady has already said she isnt collecting any rent or any arrears but then he does have a liability to pay rent and would be entitled on his income it is the landlady choosing not to collecet ???

    What are your thoughts please as Ihave a niggling feeling as mother is an associated landlord he will get this at Tribunal??? 🙂

    #112504
    aosulliv
    Participant

    Definitely not an at arms length agreement. You have been informed that regardless of HB any arrears are effectively written off and he will be allowed to remain in the property see CH/3743/2003

    #112514
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    May be worth a discussion with Derby. The circs here are ‘blurred’ (previous tenancies point in one direction, other facts go the other way) but I don’t think it would be a waste of time to let a tribunal decide even if you ultimately “lose”. (The fact the claimant moved out of Mum’s home distinguishes this imho from otherwise similar caselaw.)

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.