Reg 9 – contrived tenancy

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #23378

    Hello everyone

    New to the board/New to this job 🙂

    I have a case where our fraud section and ourselves decided a case was contrived. It is now ready to go to appeal.

    The case is an elderly lady who had been living outside the authority. When the claim form was first completed the box was ticked ‘no’ to state that they had no relationship to the landlord or landlords partner.

    The claim was put into payment. A month or so down the line the case was referred to the fraud team and it was discovered that the claimants daughter owned the property and the person stated as landlord was her partner. The case was sent down from fraud and duly cancelled back.

    During those investigations the claimant and daughter/landlord made a statement to state that she bought the property with the intention of renting the property out to her.

    The decision to terminate has now been appealed against and within the letter the story has now changed to the mother having issues with youths and that the daughter/landlord had planned to have different tenants but under the mothers cics she felt that she would benefit more. She also is now denying that she is her mother but just a lady who brought her up and never adopted her?? yet still has the same surname.

    The case will be sent to appeal next week now as there have been too many misrepresentations and changing of the facts.

    What does everyone think? can it be won?


    Kevin D

    [quote:822c858f9c]can it be won? [/quote:822c858f9c]

    Um, how can it be lost? Although, you don’t say what the HB decision was (e.g. non-commercial? contrived? evidence false?).

    Assuming your facts are correct and in context, and assuming you’ve done your homework and haven’t obtained your evidence selectively (e.g. birth certificates?), any of the following options appear to be open to consideration:

    1) evidence was falsified and, therefore, [b:822c858f9c]HBR 83(1)[/b:822c858f9c] & [b:822c858f9c]HBR 86[/b:822c858f9c] are not satisfied (see [b:822c858f9c]R v WINSTON (1998) EWCA Crim 2256[/b:822c858f9c]); and/or

    2) no actual liability ([b:822c858f9c]HBR 8[/b:822c858f9c] ); and/or

    3) non-commercial ([b:822c858f9c]HBR 9(1)(a)[/b:822c858f9c]); or (if 2 & 3 don’t apply)

    4) contrived ([b:822c858f9c]HBR 9(1)(l)[/b:822c858f9c])

    Based on the info given, it’s difficult to see why you should have any concerns about arguing the case. Or, is there more to this?


    Thanks Kevin

    I will be going with 9(1)(l)

    The claimant/landlord have misrepresented the facts and changed their statements on several different occasions. This is the main issue with the claim.

    There isn’t much more to it than that

    Kevin D

    Just a note of caution. If you can go with more than one “alternative”, I’d strongly advise that course of action.

    If the LA only put forward one option and the Tribunal find against the LA, the LA cannot change its mind if it goes to Cmmrs. But, so long as the alternative was before a Tribunal, the Cmmr can potentially consider it.



    Thanks again

    I have been going back to this case to and fro every day this week trying to get it as right as I can.

    Its good to have access to this site now though, all these knowledgeable folk 🙂


    [quote:d2d61ac6bc]all these knowledgeable folk[/quote:d2d61ac6bc]

    …and us frauds, too.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.