Is This Either Rent and/or Enforceable

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38762
    John Boxall
    Participant

    I am looking at a claim at the moment.

    Claimant took a 3 bed private rented property with assistance from a bond scheme, so rent was sent at a two bed LHA rate as that was the limit of their entitlement.

    A 6 month Assured Shorthold Tenancy was signed by landlord & Tenant

    It has now come to light that the tenant has signed a supplementary agreement called

    ‘adjoining agreement to shorthold tenancy of (same date) agreeing to pay £50.00 pcm in addition to the amount already agreed. The agreement simply refers to ‘a payment’ This was signed and dated at the same time as the AST and the extra £50.00pcm brings the total payment up to the 3 bed LHA rate.

    My initial view is that it isnt ‘rent’ but can anyone comment?

    Many thanks

    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

    Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

    #109533
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Claimant already has use and occupation of the property under the first agreement, so the £50 per month must be for something else. I agree its not rent.

    If the second agreement was something they tried to conceal it might require further investigation – for example why are they renting a 3-bed property when they only “need” two beds? How is the claimant paying the extra £50?

    #109536
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    [quote=John Boxall]Claimant took a 3 bed private rented property with assistance from a bond scheme, so rent was sent at a two bed LHA rate as that was the limit of their entitlement.[/quote]

    I think you lost me, why would it matter if it’s rent or not?

    #109540
    John Boxall
    Participant

    Because if it’s not rent I dont have to consider a DHP for it

    Basically they were desparate so agreed to pay the extra £50

    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

    Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

    #109542
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    Ah, gotcha, agree with your views, can’t see how it’s rent unless it’s for something else, say an adjoining property which it isn’t. The fact it’s separate from the AST also points to the fact that it has nothing to do with liability. Does the AST mention the adjoining agreement in the conditions of the let?

    #109579
    nolan1
    Participant

    Per chance, this could be someone letting a property that is “affordable” so that hb is paid to landlord, but actually charging more? in any case its weird…

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.