Should it be LHA?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #34830

    Could someone help me on this one please..

    Recently one of our RSL’s has sold off some of their properties to other private landlords. Therefore for claims that were affected by this we have obtained the evidence for the new landlord, amended the claim to LHA and made payments to the to the claimant.
    This has been fine but we now have one landlord who thinks that we should not be paying as LHA because their tenant has been continuously entitled to HB since 07. There has been no break in claim and no change of address so they think HB should be paid under the old rules and payments made direct to landlord.
    I’m not sure now whether we are right to pay as LHA. It’s that old doubting again!! What do you think? đŸ˜³


    I think the landlord is right: Reg 13C contains the “trigger” events that require an LHA to be determined and as far as I can see none of those has happened yet. So I think you require a Rent Officer’s CRR/LRR.

    This could reduce the amount of HB of course, but it does have the advantage from the landlord’s point of view that if the claimant expresses a preference for having HB paid to the landlord you can do so without having to satisfy any other requirements. It is up to the claimant in the first instance of course.

    John Boxall

    I am a bit suprised that a RSL can/did sell tenanted properties to a private landlord.

    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

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