One of our council's tenants needed a long stay in hospital and, because of her illness, her home was no longer suitable. A more suitable property was found – but required disabled adaptation. In order to qualify for a disabled facilities grant, the 1996 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act requires the applicant is tenant of the property where the work is to be done, so the council arranged for her existing tenancy to cease and a new tenancy to be created on her new home. However, the housing benefit section ceased benefit for her because she failed the requirement of actually living in her new home, having been in hospital ever since the tenancy was created. While there would appear to be no definition of what constitutes actually living in a home, opinion suggests that signing a tenancy agreement and having her furniture at the property isn't sufficient. Her condition precludes even one night's stay at the property as it still requires adapting to her needs and a 24-hour care package which isn't yet available. Without benefit, large arrears have built up on the lady's account. Obviously she would have to be in a stable condition before discharge, so potentially she may never be in a position to live in her home. While keen to be compassionate, the council is mindful of the duty of care it owes to other tenants to act in an economic, efficient and effective way. How can we avoid such unfortunate situations in the future?
I suggest you appeal. Regulation 5(6)(a)(i) specifically provides for up to four weeks of housing benefit to be payable before a person moves into a new home, so long as the delay was necessary "in order to adapt the dwelling to meet the disablement needs" of the claimant or any member of his or her family. The regulation says nothing about even a night's stay.
John Bryant, Policy officer, National Housing Federation
The housing benefit regulations do allow an element of discretion by local authorities in the payment of benefit.
I suggest the authority consider an award of additional housing benefit in respect of the exceptional circumstances of the claimant under regulation 61(2) of the housing benefit regulations.
Richard Kemp, Executive member for housing in the Liverpool cabinet
Reader advice on succession to obligation
On the succession to a secure tenancy problem (5 December, page 29) there is no new tenancy. Readers would be unwise to follow John Bryant's advice on this occasion – to demand (until a court rules otherwise) the arrears of the late tenant from the succeeding tenant.
Changes of tenant through assignment of leases take place all the time. An assignee is not liable for the liabilities of their predecessor in title, such as rent falling due before they became the tenant. They are liable to perform the obligations under the tenancy from the date they became the tenant.
In the case of vesting of tenancies under the Family Law Act 1996, parliament made express provision that the court might make an order extending the liability to the new tenant to matters which fell due before they became a tenant. The whole rationale across the spectrum is for non-liability for matters falling due before the change of tenant. The prospect of a court ruling otherwise is remote in the extreme. The landlord is of course entitled to payment from the late tenant's estate.
The succeeding tenant's agreement to pay the late tenant's arrears will not be binding as lacking consideration unless there is some additional consideration supplied from the landlord. The same principle will apply to introductory tenancies and succession by statute in assured tenancies. In the case of extra statutory successions, this will nearly always be a fresh tenancy.
Niki Goss, solicitor, Wandsworth & Merton Law Centre
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
If you have a housing problem, or a better answer, write in confidence to: THINK TANK, Housing Today, 7th floor, Anchorage House, 2 Clove Crescent, London E14 2BE Or email: jennifer_dunn@buildergroup.co.uk
No comments yet