Terms & Conditions

[j parkin]

Is anyone aware of any CD’s that might apply to the situation outlined below.

Two people live together as joint tenants in a RSL property. One works (A)and is also the carer for the other (B). B sucessfully claims HB for his 50% of the rent liability.

A decides to buy a property, and have B move in with him, he remains the carer. They agree that the B will pay him to live there, he claims HB.
Initially refused as non commercial, taking into account esp. declarations from each party about the degree of friendship between them.

Obviously RH 1/03 says friendship does not preclude a commercial arrangement but the arrangement smacks of having cake and eating it, A is already paid to care for B, their friendship is such that they share a property for years then agree to continue to live together, A states he would not consider advertising the property or letting to anyone else, it seems Hb is being claimed because B knows about the scheme and to help repay A’s mortgage.

Thanks

[Kevin D]

Relevant CDs: new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2a/list_liability_comdecs.php

There are other CDs (sorry – you’ll have to trawl) where family members bought, and / or provided, accommodation for other family members where care was an issue – Cmmrs generally have found for the clmt in such cases, on the issue of commerciality.

Also, the fact that someone is able to purchase a property by having a sub-tenant/lodger etc may be strong evidence that the arrangement is in fact commercial.

However, the last comment is interesting:

[quote:0a57ebde5a]”….it seems Hb is being claimed because B knows about the scheme and to help repay A’s mortgage….”[/quote:0a57ebde5a]

If the evidence and info shows that the [u:0a57ebde5a]dominant[/u:0a57ebde5a] purpose of creating the liablity was to take advantage of the HB scheme, “contrived” may be a stronger (and more appropriate) option. Especially in light of the fact that a RSL property was given up – but it will depend on the reasons as a whole. At first glance, it seems weak because the same clmt was on HB at the previous address. However, it doesn’t need to be the clmt who is taking advantage. It would be enough to show that the L/L is taking advantage.

On the bright side, at least it isn’t exempt accommodation….. 🙂 . So, no chance of a ginormous rent being covered by HB.

Regards

[Anonymous]

Caring is often done on a commercial basis, hence the amounts that are paid out by LA’s to private companies to provide residential care or home care, so in my view the non commercial argument is a non starter.

If the person requiring care’s needs warranted it, the person who bought the property could theoretically register the property with social services as a residential home, and then charge the going rate for the person’s care. It would be far more than the current rent for the HB claim

To “take advantage” in the context of Regulation 9 means to abuse. Another feasible arrangement that the people here could possibly have entered into would be to have obtained a joint mortgage. If the person requiring care was entitled to IS or pension credit, and the new property was more suited to her/his disablement needs, then the DWP would have taken the interest on a loan of up to £100k into account as housing costs.

The HB arrangement needs to be looked at in that perspective, and given that the burden of proof is on the LA to show the arrangement is designed to take advantage, I dont think the LA has a case.

[Kevin D]

[quote:bd68593dd9]I dont think the LA has a case.[/quote:bd68593dd9]

Shurely, “depending on the facts….” was in there somewhere…. 🙂

[markp]

On reading your post Kevin it is there

“if the evidence……” just about covers that.

Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

[Anonymous]

That last sentence should have read “On the face of it I dont think the LA has a strong case”

[j parkin]

Thanks for all your replies –

[Author]

Posts