Terms & Conditions

[cam82]

A privately rented property. (deregulated), had an emergency prohibition order served on it 19/10/06, due to unfit habitation.
the order was received at the landlord’s office 23/10/06. The HB was stopped from 23/10/06.
the landlord is now appealing against this decision on the grounds that they had to rehouse the tenants and couldnt move them out until 26/11/06.

what should the correct liability end date be, and under what regulations

Carol – Liverpool

[petedavies]

I’m not entirely certain but give that its at least two days since I last made myself look stupid…

The LL may well have been unable to house T for a month or so. I do not think that this is relevant, I do not think that there is any legally enforceable liability for rent from the effective date of the prohibition order. If this is correct I can see no way you can take any action other than that which you have taken.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Pete that that seems the most logical application / interpretation / outcome. 8)

Which makes me wonder which reg / CD it falls foul of!! 🙄

[Kevin D]

It’s not clear from the original post whether or not there is an overpayment involved.

If there is no overpayment, I wouldn’t worry about the L/L appeal. Any appeal should be referred to TTS as being out of jurisdiction, on the grounds that the appellant is not a “person affected”.

Regards

[Anonymous]

I have just been looking at the Housing Act 2004 and Circular A11/2006.

It looks as if your authority has decided that there is a Category 2 risk and has prohibited occupation of the property until the risk is eliminated. I can see how it would take time to move everyone out.

Kevin is right about the land,lord not being diretly affected by individual HB entitlement decisions (as distinct from overpayment decisions), but just out of interest on what basis have you decided that the claimants are not entitled to HB from the day of the prohibition order?

The amendment to the Regs as far as England and Wales are concerned only provides for a rebate to be paid as an allowance during periods when the LA has taken over management of the property. There are decisions and appeals rules for Scottish no rent orders. But there is nothing I can see that sopecifically says a claimant is not entitled to benefit during a period when a prohibition order is in force. I think you do need to look at the normal occupation and liability criteria and justify a decision to stop benefit immediately by reference to those normal criteria. Is it the case that the claimants were not liable to pay rent for the dwelling occupied as the home the instrant the order took effect? Or did it take longer for the HB entitlement conditions not to be satisfied?

I’m not saying I know the answer – you have all the facts, I don’t. But I think there is that process to go through.

[Anonymous]

I have a similar question.

Tenants live in property A, which is rented via a lettings agency.

Property A is flooded and they have to move, Environmental Health say they cannot return for 6 months (something to do with raw sewage in the flood waters) HB/CTB is stopped from the date they moved out.

Tenants move to property B, rented from the same lettings agency. The owner of property B inisisted on a proper tenancy agreement.

The owner of property A had an insurance policy which covered the cost of rehousing his tenants for 6 months. The lettings agency state that he took this out because he had a contractual liabilty to rehouse his tenants. The insurance has paid for 6 months rent in advance on property B.

The lettings agency want us to pay HB on property A, despite it being uninhabitable. They are even going to serve notice on the tenants for non-payment of rent.

The tenants have claimed HB at both properties.

Can we pay HB for property A?

When should we start paying HB at property B, bearing in mind that 6 months rent has been covered by insurance?

[Kevin D]

Sue,

In my view, HB can only be paid on one home – [b:d72ad12665]HBR 7(4)[/b:d72ad12665] seems to apply (essential repairs).

HB can only paid on “B” if there is no liability of any kind to make payments on “A”.

If liability continues at “A”, no HB can be paid on “B”.

Hope that helps.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Kevin.

I’ll pay HB at property A and CTB at property B.

[petedavies]

Had another think about this one.

The prohibition arises from the L.A. exercising a power conferred by an Act.

As such I think any continuation of the tenancy would be illegal as oppossed to unlawful. There would be no problem treating your claimant as occupying the property. Liability for rent is an “actual”. I still suspect that the LL would simply be unable to charge rent for it whether or not the tenant was in occupation for the simple reason that the charge is for an illegal act.

[Author]

Posts