Terms & Conditions

[Ozzie]

Hi
We have a claimant who has a caravan in a holiday park which, prior to the split with his partner, he was using as a holiday home. In June 2006, he seperated from his partner and has been living in his caravan permanently since then. He wants to claim Housing Benefit for the caravan site fees as the caravan is now his permanent home. However, the Park Owners are saying that it would be contrary to their site licence conditions to have a permanent resident and he’s been in arrears prior to making this his permanent home. The site owners are refusing to provide proof of the site fees and are trying to evict him. Both sides have solicitors involved who are both putting forward very convincing arguements and I feel I’m stuck between the two.
Jenni

[Anonymous]

I think the simple answer here, Jenni, is that you cannot really pay without proof of a tenancy and the charges (and what is covered).
If the landlord is refusing to provide you with that information, and the tenant cannot, I think you are stuck (in the middle as you say!!), and will not be able to reasonably establish what all the details are of the tenancy.

As to whether you can pay if details can be provided I would say yes. If he is living there for the major part of the year, (most sites seem to close for 2 or three months of the year in my experience) he could claim from elsewhere during this time, or you could regard him as being temporarily absent with no liability. 8)

[Ozzie]

Hi Jon,
Just to make sure I’ve got it clear, are you saying that even though it is contrary to the site licence agreement which my Council’s trading standards department issued, if the claimant provides proof of his rent (which I think he can), then we could pay Housing Benefit?
Jenni

[seanosul]

[quote:695d124b8a=”Jon Phillips”]I think the simple answer here, Jenni, is that you cannot really pay without proof of a tenancy and the charges (and what is covered).
If the landlord is refusing to provide you with that information, and the tenant cannot, I think you are stuck (in the middle as you say!!), and will not be able to reasonably establish what all the details are of the tenancy.

As to whether you can pay if details can be provided I would say yes. If he is living there for the major part of the year, (most sites seem to close for 2 or three months of the year in my experience) he could claim from elsewhere during this time, or you could regard him as being temporarily absent with no liability. 8)[/quote:695d124b8a]

This is incorrect. R v SB1 as Stainsby often refers back to rules that corroborating evidence is not required and that the word of the claimant is sufficient. Unless you have a doubt about the amount charged, provided you have some form of statement from the claiamnt then you can pay.

[Kevin D]

On this issue, in the circumstances given, I disagree with Sean. The word of a claimant, in this situation, is not sufficient (at least in my opinion).

[b:ec8a98af6d]HBR 86[/b:ec8a98af6d] was introduced after the “no-corroboration” CDs mentioned. It is clearly envisaged that HBR 86 is intended to provide authority for evidence being required for HB claims.

In my view, this is given further weight in [b:ec8a98af6d]CH/4688/2003[/b:ec8a98af6d] (para 11), where Cmmr Jacobs makes it clear that the correct test is about what is required – not (normally) what can be supplied. Although, I would accept that there is a danger of making a too-literal interpretation.

However, in this case, there is directly conflicting evidence. I wouldn’t pay HB until it is absolutely clear there is / was a liability. At the present time, it is far from clear that there will, ultimately, be a liability.

Regards

[Anonymous]

Posted before Kevin’s post was seen and therefore with probably an excessive amount of vehemence as I can see the light at the end of the tunnel (It’s called 4pm!) 😯

Sean – I think what I was trying to say, perhaps in a not very clear way, is that if there is some form of dispute between landlord and tenant, then I would ask for evidence to ensure the amount was correct.
I appreciate that you may think this would not be reasonable, but if there were any kind of dispute, I would think this to be a reasonable way forward, as I would feel that there MAY be a doubt about the amount the landlord may be charging, and for which period. So I do not feel that what I posted was incorrect, I am writing as per reg 86 (1)to clarify “any question arising out of the claim……….. as may be reasonably be required by the relevant authority in order to determine that person’s entitlement to….Housing Benefit”
I feel that if the claimant and landlord are in some sort of dispute then there may be good reason to confirm information. You may not think so, and that is your perogative. Stainsby may possibly say (sorry to put words in your mouth) that he would like to be the claimant’s rep in such a case and that is fair enough, but this is based on an interpretation of the regs and ultimately would be decided by a tribunal.

Jenni – Unleass there is a CD to the contrary, (and there usually is in these cases 😉 ) then it seems toi me that you can pay him whilst there is a (genuine) liability if you are satisfied that there is, as, from your original post, as it would appear that he satisfies the definition of an occupier for purposes of Reg 7. 8)
Phew! Thank God it’s Friday! 😀 8)

[petedavies]

If the LL is trying to evict, ask claimant to provide a copy of the particulars of claim or, if they have not issued, a copy of the letter before action.

Either should contain enough info to satisfy you as to whether there is a rental liability.

[Anonymous]

A decision of Mr Commissioner Jacobs CH/0318/2005 may be helpful here. That decison invloved a narrowboat rather than a caravan. The boat had no permanent mooring, and would have been contrary to tthe owners licence with the water authority for it to be permanently moored on that stretch of river.

There are strong parallels with CH/0318/2005 in the present case

The Commissioner wrote at para 31 of his decision:

“31. I reject the argument that only lawful residence is within the housing benefit scheme. Regulation 10 expressly provides that housing benefit is payable in respect of what are in effect damages for trespass. The housing benefit scheme expressly accepts the possibility that the claimant’s presence in the accommodation may not be lawful. I therefore reject any argument in so far as it is based on the fact that the claimant was not entitled to be where he was. ”

I dont agree that Reg 86 necessarily changes anything vis a vis the Commissoners decisions re corroboration [eg R(I) 2/51 R(SB)33/85 and CP/3037/2004] as the only significant change in Reg 86 is the addition of the words “or the award” in para 1. Presumably that change was introduced to provide an information requirement that would give some legal authority for the intervention process, but I have to say that the HB Regs and the corresponding D&A regs are far weaker in this respect than the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regs

I think the House of Lords in Kerr has set out clearly how the adjudication process should operate. It is a co-operative process between the adjudicator and the claimant, but at the end of the day a decision has to be made on the best evidence available regardless of who provides it

[Ozzie]

Many thanks to all who posted a response to my query. It is much appreciated.
Jenni

[Author]

Posts