Post by Patrick Torsney on Dec 6, 2010 15:37:14 GMT 1
Miss D is a 24 year old lady with 1 child aged 3.
When she moved into rented accommodation she claimed Housing Benefit to cover her housing costs as she was in receipt of Income Support. However, Miss D was refused Housing Benefit as she was deemed to have a "non commercial tenancy" under regulation 9(4) of the Housing Benefits: the landlord was her father.
Without the rent he was unable to make mortgage payments on the property. The mortgage company started court proceedings against her father. He therefore had to start action to evict her, causing considerable family conflict.
We were able to advise on Housing Benefit Regulations relating to non commercial tenancies and after looking at the facts of her case we concluded her tenancy was commercial and as a result of submitting an appeal the decision was reconsidered and Miss Dann received Housing Benefit within a month period.
The representations that we made were based on the case of R(Mackay) V Barking and Dagenham HBRB [2001] EWCA 234 (HC).
The Housing Benefit department were unaware of this particular case but were persuaded by the arguments and representations we made and awarded the appropriate amount of housing benefit.
Accordingly as the matter was resolved we were able to withdraw the appeal. Miss D was then able to pay her rent and her father was able to pay the mortgage.
As a result the following things were prevented and associated costs avoided:
The cost to the public purse for this case was a fixed fee of £167 + VAT.
When she moved into rented accommodation she claimed Housing Benefit to cover her housing costs as she was in receipt of Income Support. However, Miss D was refused Housing Benefit as she was deemed to have a "non commercial tenancy" under regulation 9(4) of the Housing Benefits: the landlord was her father.
Without the rent he was unable to make mortgage payments on the property. The mortgage company started court proceedings against her father. He therefore had to start action to evict her, causing considerable family conflict.
We were able to advise on Housing Benefit Regulations relating to non commercial tenancies and after looking at the facts of her case we concluded her tenancy was commercial and as a result of submitting an appeal the decision was reconsidered and Miss Dann received Housing Benefit within a month period.
The representations that we made were based on the case of R(Mackay) V Barking and Dagenham HBRB [2001] EWCA 234 (HC).
The Housing Benefit department were unaware of this particular case but were persuaded by the arguments and representations we made and awarded the appropriate amount of housing benefit.
Accordingly as the matter was resolved we were able to withdraw the appeal. Miss D was then able to pay her rent and her father was able to pay the mortgage.
As a result the following things were prevented and associated costs avoided:
- a full appeal process to an appeal tribunal on the housing benefit issue
- a full court process instigated by the mortgage company for repossession and eviction of Miss D's father
- a homelessness application for re-housing from Ms D and thus the likely allocation of a council house, and
- a full scale family argument that could have changed the relationships in the family for many years to come.
The cost to the public purse for this case was a fixed fee of £167 + VAT.