Hi all,

Just a quick one to brighten up the middle of the week. I am assisting a client who has recently moved into a rented property. The Lady in question has applied for HB and the Council have insisted that she produce a tenancy agreement. We all know many Landlord are very reluctant to produce a written tenancy and there is no deposit involved in this case.

Now I have no doubt that I can establish her rights as an Assured Shorthold tenant under the Housing Act 1988 as amended in 1996. I have substantive case law to determine what is a tenancy in the absense of a written agreement Street v Mountford. What I dont have is any idea of any Commissioner decisions relating to having to produce a written tenancy.

I was wondering if anybody knows of any and if not has anybody had a similar scenario and if so did you persuade the Council to pay without the written agreement.

Cheers and regards

Brian.

There is no statutory requirement for a written agreement for HB to be payable. As long as there is s genuine liability for rent, the agreement is a commercial one and it is not contrived to abuse the HB scheme then HB must be paid if all the requisite conditions of entitlement are met.

As you are aware from Street v Mountford where the HL stated that any agreement must be looked behind to establish the true facts (i.e exclusive possession, rent paid for a term certain), so the same is true for determining whether HB is payable. It is the facts that are crucial and not the wording on a piece of paper.

Naturally LA’s will employ a certain scepticism where there is no written tenancy agreement but a letter from a landlord confirming the basic details and the amount of rent should be sufficient, although a visit might be deemed necessary.

I’m not sure about definitive case law (some of the HB bods may be aware of some) although R v Sutton ex parte Keegan 1992 has something to say on the matter.

Cheers,

I have been pointed to R v Poole Borough Council ex p Ross about verbal tenancy agreements but I will also take in to account the decison you mention.

Many thanks you WR / HB lot never cease to amaze me.

Regards

Brian.

Vague memory from my old land law days that section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 says in effect that no legal estate in land can be created except by deed, except in the case of a periodic tenancy which can be created by parol (ie, orally). Anyone got access to a law library?

That will teach me to pay attention in Land Law lectures.

Section 52 is in the following terms.

52. Conveyances to be by deed.—

(1) All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed.

(2) This section does not apply to—

(a)assents by a personal representative;
(b)disclaimers made in accordance with , or not required to be evidenced in writing;
(c)surrenders by operation of law, including surrenders which may, by law, be effected without writing;
(d)leases or tenancies or other assurances not required by law to be made in writing;
(e)receipts ;
(f)vesting orders of the court or other competent authority;
(g)conveyances taking effect by operation of law.

I still wouldn't worry as HB is still payable on the basis that the claimant will be classed as a licensee.

agree with paul; she has to pay something to occupy the property, whether its called rent or something else and failure = being evicted. HB regs say nothing about formal tenancy, only legal obligation to pay ..