Liability and 2 homes

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37958
    anneb
    Participant

    This is very vague and please bear with me.

    At some point in the recent past I think I have seen some guidance about a person having the option to decide in which home they want to be treated as ‘occupying’ when they have a liability to pay rent on 2 homes.

    Am I going mad or have I seen information such as this. (the only problem being if I have I can’t remember where :~ !

    #106843
    Kevin D
    Participant

    I think there is some confusion here with a UTD where a clmt’s circumstances fell concurrently within both HBR 7(6) for 2-homes but, separately, could also fall within HBR 7(8 ) for one home. In those explicit circumstances, the UT decided the clmt could effectively decide the provision under which HB should be determined.

    However, I’m not aware of any authority that allows a clmt to decide which property is occupied. It is surely a question of fact as to which property is physically occupied, subject only to the deeming provisions of HBR 7 and case law. Imagine; a LA finds a clmt doesn’t “occupy” a premises but the clmt is able to legally say “But I want to be treated as occupying it”. The consequences of that don’t bear thinking about.

    #106844
    anneb
    Participant

    Thanks Kevin….I thought i’d seen something on rightsnet which concerned a UTD but can’t find the article and couldn’t remember what it was about – just knew it concerned 2 homes!

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