Terms & Conditions

[Darren]

Afternoon All,

I’ve just had a query handed to me and would like to see if anyone else would like to pitch in with their ideas, here goes…..

Claimant has left the property, tenancy agreement was in his name only, partner claims HB, we decide unsuccessful due to no proof of rent liability. We discover that landlord, who is an HA, has an ongoing dispute with the current tenant, and is not going to ever give her a tenancy agreement as they want her out. She claims HB again, this time she has been to the local law centre and they have wrote to us saying we should award HB under ‘ Mesne Profits ‘.

Any help much appreciated

Thanks

[Anonymous]

I think it would be use and occupation charges rather mesne profits, although the same thing in practice (the former applies to people who never were a tenant, the latter to former tenants after their tenancy has ended). In both cases, these are normally awarded by a court as compensation to the landlord for loss of rent during the period when the unwanted occupant was living in the property and defending proceedings to get them out.

Occasionally landlords will ask for these payments up front in advance of getting an order from the court, although most landlords are extremely cautious about this in case they inadvertently create a new tenancy agreement by accepting rent.

What does this claimant intend to do with her HB payments if you make them? If she is not being asked to pay money to the HA, I cannot really see what point there is.

I would be thinking along the lines of refusing the claim on the basis that there is no liability to make payments unless and until the court says different in the proceedings that the HA is presumably pursuing to get her out of the property.

[Kevin D]

Normally, it would just be a case of referring to HBR 8 and “treating” the clmt as if liable.

But, in this case, there appears to be a doubt as to ANY liability at all. It will depend on whether or not the L/L will be seeking “rent” (including by way of mesne profits) for the period(s) the clmt wishes to claim. If the L/L is adamant that they will not be seeking money from the clmt, it seems pretty clear that she is not liable. In those circs, I’m not convinced it would be reasonable to treat her as liable for any monies due from the “proper” tenant.

Regards

[Darren]

Thanks both of you, I was erring towards that way myself. It seems to me that the landlord does not want a penny of the HB, but the Law Centre is trying to get us to pay so that the L/L tacitly creates a tenancy agreement by accepting our HB award.

Thanks again

Kevin – keep crunching those odds 😉

[Author]

Posts