Hi all, hope you had a good Christmas!

Cant find the answer on this scenario so any help would be good.

Single parent, 2 kids, seperated from husband and moved into private rented accommodation. Husband paid the rent for a year in advance so the LL would accept them.
On the advice of her CPN client then claimed LHA, her LHA payments would not cover the full rent so she has been saving the money in order to pay the following years top up on the rent. (Taking out any discussion about 6k savings at the mo please!)

Tenancy is now almost up and LL is saying he make a claim for possession of the property if rent is not paid 6 or 12 months in advance. Lady has been to Shelter to check her rights and has come away terrified! Shelter have said to her that she may well be committing fraud for claiming LHA on rent that has already been paid. She is now worried that no only will she be homeless, but may end up with a criminal conviction and having a large overpayment as well!

So I guess my question is, can HB be claimed for rent that has already been paid in advance, if not wouldnt that mean every tenant who has paid a first months rent in advance, then claimed it back to start of tenancy by committing fraud? Or asking it to be backdated? Does it make a difference that it is the husband that has paid it?

My gut feeling is that she has a rental liability she is therefore eligible to claim it, but I'm always learning and any advice would be good.

P.S
Not really looking for any info on the savings issue, or the eviction process I have that covered!

Thankies!

Assuming the liability is genuine and also assuming there is nothing more to the arrangement(s) than meet the eye, I cannot see how a claim for HB can be fraudulent in the circumstances described. The fact that future liability has been met is not, in itself, relevant. Has Shelter really given the advice suggested by your client?

In principle, there is nothing to prevent a claim being made for HB in respect of a liability that has already been met in advance.

What counts is that there is a liability for the period that HB has been claimed. So long as none of the barring provisions apply (e.g. non-commercial, taking advantage; LL is former partner etc) and the type of payment is eligible (i.e. HBR 12) and the clmt is occupying the dwelling as her normal home, there should be no problem.

The question is really what are the payments made by her former partner ? Are they payments of rent that potentially affect only HB or are they payments of maintenance that might affect other benefits ?

Child maintenance is totally disregarded in the calculation of HB/CTB and so if this isn't a "passported" HB/CTB case (IS or JSA(I)) then the payments can be disregarded in the assessment of income for HB/CTB purposes and she has done nothing wrong (unless you lose the "child maintenance" argument in which case they would fall to be income)

The payments might affect IS/JSA(I) if she is in receipt meaning that it was IS/JSA(I) that was incorrectly claimed.

What is her other income ?

Thanks chaps, fairly much what I thought based on the rent liability issue.
As I am aware at the moment, her income is IS, I believe child maintenance is an ongoing discussion, and the payments to the LL is purely for the rent and seperate from the maintenance. Its only going to be for a year to help her get settled, get used to a reduced income, find a job, etc without being at risk of rent arrears.

And yes Kevin, Shelter did tell her this, however they did admit that none of their Senior Benefit Advisors were available and whilst they were pretty sure what they were saying was correct, she needed to come back and have it clarified! Honestly I wish some people would not give guess work answers!

Forget to add the years payment of rent in advance was part of the divorce settlment agreed by her solicitor.

The fact that rent has been paid appears to be a "non-issue", the only thing, that I could guess at, which would prompt the response from Shelter concerns the capital side of things...

"the only thing, that I could guess at, which would prompt the response from Shelter concerns the capital side of things..."

I still can't for the life of me see how it warrants a description of fraud, or similar - at least not based on the info available.

As an aside, capital is unlikely to be an issue if the payment was part of a formal settlement. But, the INCOME question is a bit murkier. As Julian observed, if payment, or part or it, is maintenance in respect of the children, that element is entirely disregarded (from November). For any part not in respect of the children, the HB/CTB disregard is only £15 per week (assuming the Family Premium is payable).

But, to borrow from Derek Stainsby, I wonder if it can be argued the payment is by way of an impressed trust (e.g. "Quistclose"). Or, does the nature of the settlement negate the "trust" argument? More info would be needed to answer those questions. Glad it's not on my desk .

After further talking it would appear that she does not have custody of the children, they stay with her every weekend. She does not work but is receiving ESA.

Of course she should claim, I cannot see any fraud issue (unless you can get a statement of reasons from Shelter!).

Me thinketh there may be more to this...