Terms & Conditions

[carolineq]

Clmt & family (on max HB) were moved from their LA property by the police for their safety, apparently because of intimidation after clmt gave police information. Police advised clmt to contact Housing Dept, which they did and were offered temp accommodation that they turned down as it was, in their view, unsuitable and they returned to their LA property and almost immediately there was a fire which rendered their home unsuitable for occupation and they were then housed in temp accommodation. This is a tricky one as if I treat them as unable to occupy their home due to essential repairs I can’t pay benefit on both homes but if I treat them as fleeing violence then I can, but the issue here is that they did return home initially and I would imagine have remained there had it not been for the fire (although I am led to believe that the cause of the fire is suspicious) …I would be grateful for any thoughts out there.
Thank you.

[Carol Meredith]

Just a thought. If it is LA property and the LA have moved them out as the original property is not habitable, tehn why are they being charged on 2 properties? If it is a licenced move for essental repairs then shouldn’t they be charged the original rent while they are living in the temporary address but not be charged on both properties? Any way round I do not see how the LA can support charging them for both properties.

[Anonymous]

how long were they in the “unsuitable” property and how long were they back at their original home? i agree with last posting landlord should pay if they move them out for repairs but the initial issue wasn’t repairs.If they were temporarily absent with an intention to return(which could be proved as they actually did return) then they’ll be eligible HB 52 wks for fleeing fear of violence wont they? then after that its a repairs issue and landlord should pay for their temp property while Hb continues on normal home? unless they can’t return in which case their normal home is wherever theyve been rehoused and they have no rental liability for somewhere thats inhabitable. 😀 hope im right

[Anonymous]

how long were they in the “unsuitable” property and how long were they back at their original home? i agree with last posting landlord should pay if they move them out for repairs but the initial issue wasn’t repairs.If they were temporarily absent with an intention to return(which could be proved as they actually did return) then they’ll be eligible HB 52 wks for fleeing fear of violence wont they? then after that its a repairs issue and landlord should pay for their temp property while Hb continues on normal home? unless they can’t return in which case their normal home is wherever theyve been rehoused and they have no rental liability for somewhere thats inhabitable. 😀 hope im right

[Kevin D]

Unless I’m missing something, the crux is this (barring the argument about whether the LA may or may not be able charge for 2 homes in any case):

[quote:95d256ddca]there was a fire which rendered their home unsuitable for occupation and they were then housed in temp accommodation.[/quote:95d256ddca]

At the point of time at which the clmt moved into temporary accom, the reason AT THAT TIME was because of the necessity for essential repairs. The issue is the CAUSE of the LATEST absence. Based on the info given, the cause of the absence in question was the fire, not fear of violence.

[Author]

Posts