Does Reg 9(1)(d) bite here- or not?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44482
    Clive Hayward
    Participant

    Hello,

    All views very gratefully accepted.

    Claimant moves in 2004. She rents part of house from resident landlady. Has been in receipt of HB there ever since.

    In 2006, claimant gives birth to child whose father is landlady’s son.

    Suspicion that he is LTAHAW with claimant but consensus is we can’t prove it

    In 2008, (for reasons not clear) son becomes joint owner of property with his mum: the claimant’s landlady.

    Whatever the realities of the situation MIGHT be, no documentation showing that the initial rent agreement with landlady has been changed- so arguably the man is not her landlord?

    What do you think?

    (Don’t worry about other parts of Reg 9(1) for these purposes)….   

    #125795
    petedavies
    Participant

    On the face of it no. The original agreement can still stand and may well do depending on the arrangement between the joint owners.

    #125796
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    I think the Council could take a reasoned approach here that from the date the son became the joint owner the landlord / tenant relationship changed. Otherwise we end up with the bizarre situation that the mother is paying rent which will benefit (directly or indirectly) the father of her child.

    There is some caselaw which may help the claimant here I remember but only to a limited extent….and this is certainly an “in the alternative” option that I would happily put to a Tribunal.

    I actually think this is a bizarre position anyway; there are lots of opportunities to purchase holdings in rented property ( known as “joint ventures” to many landlord investors). One of the obvious attractions is that you share the rent..whatever name is on the tenancy agreement.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.