Terms & Conditions

[markp]

Have an awkward case here.

Claimant rents property and assigns tenancy over to daughter aged 18 since she is going to live in USA for a spell. New tenancy agreement Doesn’t like the USA so returns to UK.

We receive two handwritten letters supposedly from the landlord confirming that the tenancies have been amended with effect from 5.7.06, however the letters are signed by the mother. Therefore I don’t accept that the liability has necessarily been amended.

Mother now has a new HB claim. I am minded to refuse it as having proven no liability to pay rent but am not totally convinced that this is right. We only have a tenancy agreement and no other proof that money has changed hands. Claimant moved back in on 5.6.06 and tenancy agreement is dated 10.7.06. Therefore I am asking for any brave souls to make any observations re liability or commerciality on this kind of scenario.

I am also considering the possibility that mother has contrived the liability in signing the two letters and that the landlord may be blissfully unaware that mother is back in the property. Any thoughts on this.

All contributions gratefully received.

Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

[markp]

Anyone?!!

Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

[peterdelamothe]

Its a tricky one and one in which you would be entitled to contact the landlord and find out exactly what has been agreed, assigned, revoked etc. Without that, I cannot see how you can prove / disprove who is liable to pay what and when. You cannot rely on the evidence provided by the Mother and also not rely on it to prove your case.

This is the type of case where the overriding duty to protect public funds allows the LA to make enquiries from the landlord – even if the claimant has asked you not to do so.

[Author]

Posts