Terms & Conditions

[simonh]

I have an appeal with the following circumstances:
Mrs A has moved into privately rented property to share with her ex-partner, Mr B (they don’t live together as a couple and its not the previous marital home). The property has only one bedroom and Mrs A sleeps in it at night whilst her ex-partner works. He then sleeps during the day when she gets up. At the weekend he sleeps in the living room.

Mrs A has agreed to pay half of the rent for Mr B, and once his ucrrent tenancy expires they intend to have her name added to the agreement.

I was intending to turn the claim down but wondered what other people thought?

[Anonymous]

I was wondering what happened at weekends myself… 😉

[emmadring]

I would have serious doubts that they are not living together as a couple! How many people move into a one bedroom property with someone who used to be their partner but are not as a couple? Have you done a LTAHW visit (althogh must admit they are not always that helpful).

On what grounds would you turn the claim down? Wouldn’t you want to treat them as a couple so that both incomes are taken into account?

[simonh]

As Mrs A is on IS this has already been investigated. Although they originally found that she was LT, a sucesful appeal was made against this decision.

[seanosul]

I can see circumstances in which this may happen – an amicable break up of relationship maybe. As this has already been looked at in terms of LTAHAW I would suggest paying on bedspace only which is what she has.

[aosulliv]

Have a look at Moult https://hbinfo.org/menu2/caselaw/moult.shtml

If you want any further info re this pm me

[Kevin D]

Agree with aosulliv.

Although only hinted at in Moult, I’d also consider throwing into the mix a suggestion that the clmt does not in fact have a dwelling. He merely occupies someone else’s dwelling.

Regards

[John Boxall]

I had a similar case some years ago, from memory the claimant had the landlords room when she was not at the property, and the sofa when she was.

Tenency Relations advised me that there was no enforceable rent liability.

I submitted the appeal to TAS on this basis but the TAS1 was never returned.

However in this case is there an issue over her in effect ‘paying as if liable’ as a joint tenant? If they were joint tenants we would have no reason not to pay, the arraagements for the use of the property would not be an issue other than for LTAHAW?

John

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

[simonh]

Thanks for all your contributions.

Both the clt and l/l have admitted that they would not enter into this kind of agreement with anyone else, and so, having read Moult, I’ve decided to uphold the original decision not to award benefit.

John,

I have already admitted to this lady that when her name is added to the tenancy agreement HB will be awarded as the actual living ararngement won’t be such an issue (although I think the RO may have a view on the eligible rent).

[aosulliv]

If you accept that Moult’s decision (I know about this case in great detail) is enough to refuse entitlement, how can you then say you would pay once the tenancy had been amended.

This is how the Moult claim was decided by changes in the tenancy to suit HB

[simonh]

The intention had always been to enter into a joint tenancy once the curernt one expired. I don’t have any conerns that this has been done to take advantage of the scheme.

[Author]

Posts