Terms & Conditions

[cheryl b]

Morning all,

I’m just after a bit of advice please. I have a claim for housing benefit from a customer who formerly owned the property which she is now renting. It was a mariage split and the husband could not afford to pay the mortgage and accommodate himself as well. The wife works part time and could not afford to take on the mortgage herself therefore the property was sold to a commercial landlord. She has confirmed there were no mortgage arrears when the property was sold however she could not have remained in the property without selling it.

She is due to receive over £16000 from the proceeds however these are currently being held by the solicitor as they are in dispute.

I’m torn between paying HB and not paying as she could not have remained in the property but the property was not in immediate danger of being repossessed. 😕

[Kevin D]

The test to be applied when considering whether or not the clmt could have continued to occupy the dwelling without relinquishing ownership is as follows:

1) Is there a LEGAL compulsion?

2) Is there a PRACTICAL compulsion?

3) Is there a moral obligation?

If either of the first two apply, the clmt will not fall foul of [b:2b9d1a6ac2]HBR 9(1)(h)[/b:2b9d1a6ac2]. A moral obligation will not, in itself, be enough unless it is tied in with, usually, the issue of practical compulsion.

In short, this means that it doesn’t need the bailiffs to be knocking at the door. In your case, it seems that the primary issue is the one of “practical compulsion”. In other words, could the clmt, in all practicality, remain in the dwelling without relinquiching ownership? For example, if she had hung on to ownership for a while, would the end result simply have been delayed?

There are several CDs on “5 year rule” cases – link below:
new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2a/list_liability_comdecs.php

Regards

[Author]

Posts