Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

Does anyone else have a problem with the evidence that the auditors are requesting for regulated tenancies?

Our auditors say that they need evidence that the tenancy began pre 1989 eg rent books/tenancy agreement but as our records only go back as far as 1994 and all the old paper work is no longer available, I cannot supply what they say they need.

Every claim form that the tenants have completed since 1994 state the date that they moved in (in one case 1937) but the auditor does not want to accept the claim form as evidence.

Anyone able to advise?

[daveragea]

I’m having just that problem currently, I’ve pointed out the DP rules and that our DIP records only go back as far as 95/96. Some of the cases have fair rent registration documents but our review forms (that were) don’t have the tenancy start date on them at all. I’m waiting for them to come back to me. This evidence has not been requested before but the claim has never been qualified. Watch this space! 😥

[Kevin D]

This “may” help.

Firstly, an LA is entitled to accept the information given on a claim form as evidence. LAs are required to be satisfied of the evidence by reference to [b:bd5cf12502]HBR 86[/b:bd5cf12502] – not by reference to VF or any other non-legally based admin arrangement or DWP guidance. A clmt’s word is in fact evidence. So, if the LA is satisfied that HBR 86 has been met (re “information”), that, in LAW, is enough. There are plenty of threads on this forum about the legal status of VF (or, more accurately, the lack of legal status).

However, from the flip side, the date of moving in is not enough in itself. The crux is when the tenancy first started. Also, from an auditors point of view, the disposal of currently relevant paperwork does tend to invite questions. And, reasonably so.

As a suggestion, howabout holding your hands up and writing to all the affected clmts to ask them, nicely, for the evidence (there surely can’t be that many left?). “Nicely”, because the clmts are, in reality, doing you a favour by making good the LA’s defective paperwork – it isn’t a case where there is any real question as to the clmts’ entitlement. Because of the circs, if the clmts don’t respond, I doubt you could apply DARs 11/13/14 etc.

[Stalbansbenefits]

We are having exactly the same problem. We tried approaching the relevant landlords for assistance (some of them are Housing Associations) but most of them have stated that their records also don’t go back that far…

[Anonymous]

This might work. If the regulated tenancy is registered, it ought to be listed on the Rent Service’s web site at [url]https://ebusiness.therentservice.gov.uk/SubmissionWebsite/(tsauft55dfkygmfkw3oz2inu)/universal/rentregister/default.aspx [/url]

It’s no help if it’s not registered of course but it’s certainly been handy here.

Cheers,

Darren

[Anonymous]

With old tenancies the original documents have often been lost by all parties, so asking the tenant for proof is ineffective.

The heart of the matter is that these tenancies are outside the RO scheme, no? So we asked the RO. He said:

a) If there’s a registered rent he can let us have a register copy (I don’t know if this is official – we asked nicely). ISTR this doesn’t in itself prove the tenancy’s pre-1989 but our auditors don’t know that.

b) If we refer the claims he’ll ask when the tenancy started, take the tenant’s word for it and reject the referral as outside the scope. There’s really nothing else he can do in this situation. It should be possible to show an auditor that it’s pointless to refer these tenancies.

Also useful is the IRL list. Old tenancies are generally at lower rents than new ones because the landlord’s taking a risk with new tenants. If the rent being asked for an old tenancy is below the IRL it’s highly unlikely that the RO would restrict the rent.

[Julian Hobson]

I would ask the auditor why there is a requirement to refer to the RO in these cases ?

Reg 12A (1) Requires an application where there has been a claim (except in excluded tenancy cases) or where there has been a change (that would require a change to a previous decision) or a PTD.

Until now all those old cases have been perfectly fine, they were fine in 1989 and fine every year since. There have been no “claims” that would require a referral during this year (have there ?) and so there is no basis to make one.

If they are new ones then you would be able to show that that was the case and that you had dealt with them appropriately because they wouldn’t be in that cell.

Your auditor is looking at this years expenditure, last years was signed off and I suggest cannot be revisited without serious doubt as to its accuracy. The only thing he should be looking at is whether there is now a requirement to refer having accepted in previous years that there wasn’t, not whether there was ever a requirement.

[jmembery]

Our Auditor agreed to pick a small sample (10 Cases) and to look in the electorol roll for 1998/99.

It didn’t take long. They were actually quite reasonable on this for a change.

[Author]

Posts