Terms & Conditions

[JamesPickering]

Any opinions muchly appreciated,

We have a lady who has lived in a property since 1969. The property is owned by a neighbouring LA (Oxford[u:10c95b150d]shire[/u:10c95b150d] County Council) but is in our area. From what she has told us it appears that the property is on the premises of a primary school which I she used to work in before she retired.

Her rent was increased in April 06 from £493.00 to £700.00 pcm as the LA wanted to increase the rent to Market Level.

She has been issued with a “secured tenancy” agreement in July 06 but has refused to sign it.

The lady does not have a “HRA” with the LA but the LA do own it.

The Rent Service have said because it is owned by a LA it is out of their scheme.

I can’t decide if we can pay, if she is a private tenant then she is excluded under the long tenancy rule but if she is a Council Tenant how do we pay if she doesn’t have a HRA.

It seems to me that she is a private tenant renting from a LA but I can’t stick myself to an answer.

J

[Mark]

I think the Rent Service are wrong. A county council is not a “local authority” (see s191 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 for the definitions of “housing authority” and “local authority”). So you’re not paying a rent rebate under s134(1A) of the SSAA 1992, you’re paying a rent allowance under s134(1B).

[Mark]

I’m assuming though that you meant Oxford[u:0fa6b923f0]shire[/u:0fa6b923f0] County Council. Because if it’s Oxford City Council this is an LA.

[JamesPickering]

That is correct, I have amended my original post 😳

[Anonymous]

Mark is right and I have seen exactly this situation in a case involving Surrey County and Tandridge district. Surrey had carried out a review of its property portfolio and cranked up the claimant’s rent to full market value. It was a farmhouse with lots of land, so not surprisingly the LRR undercut it by a mile. But it was a rent allowance case with a binding LRR and there was nothing Tandridge could do about it.

[JamesPickering]

This has moved on slightly.

My original post was regarding a claimant who had made a new claim following her excessive rent increase.

It now transpires that there may well be more tenants currently receiving HB from possibly ourselves and maybe other neighbouring LA’s.

my query is: have the long tenancy rules have always been in place or were they introduced at a later date and if they have always been there is there any way that the could/should be receiving HB?

[Anonymous]

The long tenancy rules have always been there, but I wouldn’t assume it’s a long tenancy purely on the basis of length of residence. The test is whether the tenancy was originally for a specified term in excess of 21 years. If it’s just an open-ended week-by-week or month-by-month tenancy, the fact that it has lasted for longer than 21 years doesn’t mean it is a long tenancy.

[Author]

Posts