One of our tenants stayed with a relative/friend whilst we renovated his property.He cont to receive Hb on our property. He is now seeking compensation from us for living costs whilst staying with his relative, as he says if we had instead deferred his rent on our property he could have then claimed Hb on his temporary address. I dont have much info about what he was actually paying but i believe he could only have claimed Hb if there was a commercial rental liabilty - not just for board and lodgings which i presume this actually was? Any guidance appreciated.

Was he lodging with a friend OR relative and if a relative which one?

Nicky

I'm trying to find out a bit more info from person dealing witht eh complaint - theyve just asked me to check if hisclaim that he 'could' have claimed Hb are correct. Would it make a difference then depending on whether a friend or relative?

did he have to move out or could the work have been done around him. If he had to move out then there was no rental liability and HB should not have been paid.

Firstly he has to have been "required" to move in to temporary accommodation.

Secondly the repairs have to have been "essential"

Thirdly he has to be "liable to make payments" on the temporary accommodation.

If all 3 were met then yes, by charging for the "normal" home you prevented him claiming HB on the temporary home.

Reg 7(4).

Yes it would - it's also important that if it was a relative - what relative. As, for example he could not be treated as liable for paying rent to a brother he lived with but could be treated as liable for rent if he paid rent to a grand-daughter he lived with.

If you have access to the CPAG handbook it's worth having a look at pages 202 & 203.

Tue 16-Jun-09 10:09 PM by shawn

(Edited to replace capital letters throughout)

thanks for the replies. it wasnt essentialfor him to move out -most of our tenants have stayed put whilst this work is done but i am awaiting more information on his case in particular.

most of the rsponses seem to be about our tenancy -i'm really querying the rental liabiliity of him staying with a friend/relative (i havent found out the realationship yet). i have read through the cpag section and its a bit clearer - especially the close relative part if that applies to him. if not it's whether there is a liabilty for rent at the temp address and whether it would be commercial i need to clarify i think

I suggest you speak to Chris Hurdle in Wakefields benefit dept, he should be able to advise you on all the permutations that might have been possible. But in summary.

If he is simply temporarily absent from his normal home (less than 13 weeks) he continues to get HB on it (the current position).

He can only get HB on the temporary property if it is accepted that he has a liability and no other exclusion applies (commerciality etc reg 9 HB Regs)

He can't get benefit on both.

Finally why would you waive rent if you did not require him to move out ?
If you didn't waive anybody elses rent and worked around them then what is so special about this case (I'm not saying it isn't special but I think you need to be happy that it is) ?

It strikes me as though you have no option but to refer the complaint as a late notified change of circumstances to your benefits dept. It will be for them to decide whether there are any grounds for revising the award on the evidence available. It isn't really an issue of compensation, the award is either right or wrong and it is for them to decide in the first instance.

Wed 17-Jun-09 08:51 AM by jmembery

From your replies so far then I don't think it matters if he had a liability at the temporary address or not.

If he was not required to move out then the reg does not bite, he is still treated as occupying his main accommodation.

As he is not treated as occupying his temporary accommodation he can't get HB on it even if he has a liability for it. This would be the case even if you did not charge rent for the period of repair.