Client has joint tenancy with partner. They split up & he leaves the property & ceases contributing to the rent. Client claims Housing Benefit. Is told that she will have to get a new tenancy in her sole name as otherwise her ex-partner will be deemed to be contributing.

I'm sure this is wrong, but can someone please confirm it & point me to the relevant regulations.

Does the LA accept that the partner has indeed left? If they do then they know she is solely liable and the amount of the eligible rent is unaffected by this occurence anyway. On what legislative basis do they propose to "deem" her ex-partner to be "contributing"?

I am also pretty sure that the landlord is under no obligation to issue a "new tenancy". Why would they? There's already a tenancy.

So yes, it's a piece of nonsense.

Possible CDs: CH/3376/2002 & CH/1344/2005.

I suspect the Q here is; is the ex-partner contractually liable for any rent?

If so....

Hmmm, it's not qute nonsense if you ask me- but it's pretty close.

The ex-partner will indeed remain contractually liable to pay rent, but so will the remaining tenant, and it is how that rent is apportioned for Housing Benefit purposes that is relevant.

I'd agree with Kevin that CH/3376/2002 is a useful case to raise, specifically paragraphs 49 to 58. They basically state that all relevant factors must be considered by the council when deciding how much rent to apportion to the claimant left behind, and that the proportion of that rent that the landlord expects that remaining individual to pay is especially relevant. I assume the landlord expects the tenant to pay the full amount?

Of course, this is a matter of discretion and I fear you might therefore have difficulty in appealing an unfavourable decision (outside of JR etc), but I may be wrong there. Hope so as this sort of decision always seems very harsh to me, a double whammy for someone who's just been abandoned by a partner.

Actually Anselmo's logic is perfect! The LA can apportion the rent as appropriate in the circumstances. If you're going to apportion the rent between one tenant who occupies all of the dwelling and one who occupies none of it, there's only one apportionment that makes any sense.

Just to add...

If the clmt was my client, I'd simply get the appeal in and quote the CDs. No point in banging your head against an unresponsive wall. A wonderful phrase used in another forum referred to the concept of a "Benefits Refusal Officer".... I think you've found one.

Many thanks for the prompt and helpful replies. Could someone please direct me to CH 1344 2005. I can't find it on Rightsnet or the other sites.

Thanks very much to Kevin D, CH/1344/20005 is now available on rightsnet -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CH_1344_2005.doc

Was she told this in an 'official' determination or just verbally. If the former I would seek a review quoting the CD's provided and consider a complaint regarding the standard of decision making.

If the latter, I would definitely complain as the regs provide the circumstances by which claims should dealt with and this situation isn't covered - that amounts to maladministration.

How can they tell her to get a new tenancy agreement.. If she has rent arrears, the landlord will be reluctant to d this, as it would mean any arraers would then become former tenant arrears and as such they would be able to take possession action should they want to..

They may only issue a new tenancy agreement if there are no arrears..

What HB should perhaps be asking for is a forwarding address for him...