Terms & Conditions

[Andy Shanks]

This case is causing some arguement so I thought that I would broaden the number of people involved. Here is the set up

Property owned by Mr R C
Mr R C let the property to Mr S H – tenancy stipulated no sub letting
Mr S H sub let to current tenant – Miss S Zi – statement of rent submitted 14.06.04 signed by Mr S H (verbal agreement no written tenancy)
Housing benefit was in payment until recently as Mr S H being the landlord
Claim suspended as Mr S H submitted letter to state Miss Z vacated property( this is incorrect she did not vacate the property)
Owner Mr R C has a claim for possession of his property stating both Mr S H and Miss S Z has breached the tenancy and forfeited the lease
This ground of possession is discretionary and Miss S Z wishes to fight the claim when it goes to court on the 27.11.06
Mr R C and Mr S H have not lived at the property since Miss Z has lived there
Mr S H is now illegally trying to evict her by changing the locks to the property.

should claim have been paid, for the record I say yes, opinions?

[Darren W]

I would say yes unless Miss S Z knew that Mr S H should not have been letting the property.

The fact that Mr S H had signed a tenancy agreement with the owner Mr R C saying he would not sub-let is a matter of contract law between the two of them.

Miss S Z took the property in good faith and had a verbal agreement that stated she needed to pay rent to live there.

Of course if you think that Miss S Z knew about the situation and worked with Mr S H, to claim HB, then I would cancel right back and refuse benefit under HB2006 9 (1)(l).

[Anonymous]

I’d say that there was an arrangement between Mr R H and Ms S Zi even though it may have been against the terms of the original tenancy.

I’m sure that there is case law on this subject so at that juncture, I’ll stand back in favour of someone who can rapidly come in with the appropriate CD.

Over to you……..

[Author]

Posts