Landlord is director of tenant’s employer

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #38454


    I have a case in which the tenant has provided the same address for both his landlord and his employer. Further digging has established that the landlord is the director of the company which employs the tenant. Our revenues section has established that the director, not the company, is liable for NDR.

    The tenant was employed by the company as a general labourer within days of occupying the property, which until very recently was a former school building with no capacity for residential living. I suspect that the tenant is involved in the renovation or repurposing of the building “from the inside”, so to speak. Our revenues section are therefore looking to band part of the large school building as a self-contained accommodation.

    Am I correct in thinking that the tied accommodation rule does not apply in this case? The tenant may very well be living at this property as a condition of his employment, but, even so, is his employer not the company, rather than the director and landlord?

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.


    I think you are asking the right questions, nut it is the tenant and the landlord you need to ask to establish the facts you refer to.

    Would the landlord evict for non payment of rent? What are the terms of the lease? Would he rent to someone else etc?

    Tied accomodation may apply but no liability to pay rent, non commercial etc may be easier to prove.

    Invite them in for an interview at the same time, but seperately ask the same questions (i.e. interview them in 2 diff. rooms by 2 diff. decision makers) and if the claim is a rat it will squeal, if it is genuine then their answers will add up.

    It may sound odd but always tackle these claims in a way to try and prove the claim is a valid one and if I can’t then I am comfortable in not paying benefit.

    Good luck.



    Many thanks for your input – annoyingly, getting the two in for an appointment is likely to prove problematic if not impossible, as the landlord lives and works on the other side of the country.

    I should point out that all I have to suggest non-eligibility is a vague suspicion of tied accommodation. I will admit that the set-up is rather strange, but fundamentally no different to any other tenancy where residential and non-residential premises fall under the same curtilage (say, for example, a flat above a shop). We have a valid, signed tenancy agreement which shows no sign of forgery or landlord-tenant collusion, and so I have no other reasons to suspect non-commercial liability. Our visiting officers are satisfied that the property is both habitable and inhabited (the exact make-up of the property indoors will be up to the VOA to establish). We will of course request continuing proof of tenancy and rent paid to date as the claim progresses, but the claimant will have little (if any) rent payment history [i]now[/i], as he has only just occupied.

    Can anyone address the tied accommodation issue? If it does not apply, then on the strength of the existing information, I am pretty much obliged to pay.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.