ex partner treat as former owner

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38273
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Can anyone point me to any case law on the above. Have a set aside hearing on Wednesday and judge said originally to treat ex partner as former owner

    #63319
    Kevin D
    Participant

    What is the context in which the Tribunal was inclined to “treat” an ex partner as a former owner? Reg 9 (if so, which provision)? Capital (actual? notional?)? Also, does the ex-partner still reside in the property?

    #63326
    Anonymous
    Guest

    9(1)(h) Our claimant is not on land reg and the ex partner is no longer in the property. He sold the property to the son for £55,000 which I beleive is the balance outstanding on the mortgage. The son continued to ive int he property with his mother and thn left and charged her rent. I went for non commercial 9(1)(a) but the judge said should be 9(1)(H). Set aside with the proviso customer satisfies LA could not have continued to occupy the dwelling without relinquishing ownership. has not provided this info, just a statement of acct saying £55,000 paid for prop. In original decison notice judge has suggested LA may decide sale was at an under value and treat customer as having deprived herself of capital. As not all info asked for provided will new tribunal hearing go with previous decision? or should go for non-commercial. Customer been there over 2 years and paid one months rent, son threatend to evict , but still there!

    #63328
    Kevin D
    Participant

    If your clmt has NEVER appeared on the land reg, s/he cannot be a “former owner”. “Owner” has a specific and limited meaning for HB purposes – see HBR 2 for the definition in conjunction with the Court of Appeal judgement in “Burton”. It *appears* the Tribunal judge has misdirected him/herself on that point.

    Further, I’m a bit perplexed at why the judge is saying it must be one thing INSTEAD of another. If non-comm is justified, the judge could have determined that as being correct in any case, irrespective of whether or not there was any other bar to HB. It is now relatively commonplace for LAs to make decisions which include alternatives (e.g. non-comm; or, in the alternative, 5-yr rule; or, in the further alternative, taking advantage…. and so on). There is plenty of legal authority where such an approach has been considered to be perfectly proper.

    Assuming the clmt is not a former owner (as per the legal definition of “owner” for HB purposes), it’s up to the LA to show, on the balance of probability, that the agreement / tenancy is/was not on a commercial basis. Also, is there any evidence to suggest “taking advantage”?

    #63331
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Thank u for your input much appreciated. Was perplexed at original decision myself, but as heard nothing wasn’t going to rock the boat!

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.