The difference between moving out and the actual notice period with reference to over payment

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37852
    david bradley
    Participant

    A tenant gave notice one month before moving out, which exspired on the 9th march an I took possession that same day.

    The problem is the tenant told the councuil they moved out on the 5th.

    I have already been paid for this up to the 9th, and they are requesting a refund. Can I challenge this? and how?

    Also if the tenant dosent give me any notice and moves out but they tell the council, am I compelled to repay the council or can I challenge it as the tenant by contract is responsible for the rent for month month after notice has been given.

    How would I argue this as a case with the council? What could I reference if so?

    David

    #106606
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    The first is a matter of fact; if the Council believes the tenant and thinks you are telling porkies, then you have the right to challenge by appeal.

    In the second situation, you can only be held liable from the date you knew the premises had been vacated. If you knew the tenant had left but though to yourself, “well the rent has been paid by the Council” then you are liable. If you just found the premises abondoned then its your responsibility from that date but NOT before.

    As always, the Council is likely to try to recover from the landlord in all such cases.

    #106653
    david bradley
    Participant

    So if the tenat ups and leaves and I find out stright away I am not entitled to any rent (from the LHA) to cover the one month notice period they should have given?

    However I can chase the tenant for the one months rent thats unpaid as they are still liable however if theres no gauruntee or deposit………fat chace of getting a penny!

    #106664
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    Normally yes – if the claimant has to move urgently, then sometimes there is the possibility of getting a month extra (if the tenant moved into social housing etc.). But normally there is nothing – the claimant is probably claiming somewhere else and with a few rare exceptions, the State is not going to pay for two properties.

    What you really need to look for in LHA tenants is folk who are never going to move. 50 plus perhaps?

    #106713
    david bradley
    Participant

    Yes, folk that will not plan on moving or getting a job.

    I’m aware that the tenants can get an over lap payment. However as a landlord I would need the tenants cooperation to apply for this with a justified reason such as fleeing domestic violence. Then both the new landlord an previous landlord can be payed for up to 28 days?

    Is that correct?

    #107203
    Kevin D
    Participant

    I’ve seen this a bit late in the day but hopefully this will assist.

    There is no legal requirement to “apply” for HB on two homes. In short, if the LA has sufficient information showing the relevant part(s ) of Regulation 7(6) are satisfied, HB is payable without there being any need for a specific application.

    Further, in my view, there is no need for the tenant to necessarily be involved. If one, or more, sub-paragraphs of HBR 7(6) is/are satisified, 2-homes is payable – this is mandatory, not discretionary.

    Of course, the LA *may* want to verify information with the clmt but, ultimately, if the clmt cannot be contacted, 2-homes can only be refused if the LA doesn’t accept there is entitlement.

    For clarity, with one exception, paragraph 6 of HBR 7 is the only basis on which HB can be lawfully paid on 2 homes. The exception is where a household is so large, two separate dwellings are occupied as one single dwelling. However, if a private tenancy, I’m pretty sure the LHA rate will be applied on the basis of it being a single dwelling; not applied by adding the rates of the two dwellings together.

    Hope this helps.

    #107363
    david bradley
    Participant

    Thanks,

    Never to late to add to a thread, knowledge is power!

    D

    #107542
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    Backing up what Kevin has stated here, the provision to pay for up to 4 weeks after vacation is based on the ongoing liability being “unavoidable” – nothing more than that.
    Although some LA’s seem to attach some importance on the need to/reason for the move, this has no legal basis – it is simply whether, during the whole process of moving, they could have avoided having a notice period (either running alongside a new tenancy elsewhere or they have moved where rent is not payable). Two simple questions – was notice given as soon as practically possible? could the new tenancy start/move have been delayed? If yes to first and no to second then HB should cover the notice period (up to 4 weeks).

    #107729
    david bradley
    Participant

    Thanks Andy, Kevin and Peter.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.