Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

This decision is causing great difficulties for my LA. In addition to the possibility of having to make adverse decisions in respect of some very vulnerable tenants the potential reduction in HB paid in respect of properties that may not meet the criteria to be treated as exempt is likely to met by our social services division – at least in the short term.

I’d be grateful if anyone out there can share their experiences of impleenting this decision with me.

Feel free to e-mail or message if you do not wish to post in public domain.

[peterdelamothe]

See previous thread

https://hbinfo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7162

[Kevin D]

From the outset, I should make it clear that while the rest of this post may suggest otherwise, I am hugely sympathetic to the tenants who are caught in the middle.

However, as I keep banging on about it, there is a growing body of evidence that shows certain so-called not-for-profit landlords have attempted to use vulnerable tenants as a vehicle for financial gain.

Unfortunately, there will undoubtedly be one or two genuine schemes which will be adversely affected by the legislation. That said, I’m nevertheless unclear why CH/0423/2006 is causing any difficulty in terms implementation. It simply confirms the legislation as it was actually worded. The only effect it has is to focus the attentions of some LAs to the fact that, in some cases, the exempt accommodation rule has been relied on when it should not have been.

In summary Richard, it’s doubtful you have a choice. When I get a moment, I’ll send a pm to you with a bit more info.

Regards

[Author]

Posts