Morning,

Have come across a bit of an unusual (or at least it is for me) situation that I could do with a bit of advice on please.

Tenant lives in rented accomodation. Landlord is a RSL. Tenant moved into property in October 1997. She applied for HB and CTB in June 1999, which was subsequently awarded.

Despite landlord being a RSL, LA referred rent to the rent office for a decision. Rent officer decision was made in June and has been rereferred to the rent officer every June since this original claim.

Tenants rent increases in September every year.

LA argue that rent officer decision made in June cannot be changed or rereferred for 12 months so for the period from when the rent increases in September to the following June, there is a shortfall in HB entitlement which the LA has told the tenant she has to pay as there is nothing she can do about this.

Have applied for DHP for the tenant for the period September to June but this isn't really an ideal solution as there is no guarantee DHP will be awarded.

Is what the LA saying about the rent officer referral correct or is there anything that can be done to ensure that when the rent increases in September, HB can be reassessed at the time to take this into account so the tenant does not have to wait until June of the following year?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Cheers

John

As you say, rather unusual.
Normally RSL tenancies are excluded from referral.

"This paragraph applies where the landlord is a registered housing association, except in a case where the local authority considers that—

(a) the claimant occupies a dwelling larger than is reasonably required by him and any others who occupy that dwelling (including any non-dependants of his and any person paying rent to him); or
(b) the rent payable for that dwelling is unreasonably high."

I assume from your posting that the rent is not restricted (except immediatly after the rent increase) so it does not look like the rent in unreasonably high, so I assume the dwelling is larger than reasonably required.

In either case, however, the 52 week rule the LA are telling you about applies unless there is a "change relating to a rent allowance" which included a; "rent increase under a term of the tenancy, and the
term, or a term which was substantially the same, was included in the tenancy at the time the previous determination was made, and a determination was not made because of a significantly high rent
the size of the dwelling, or an exceptionally high rent"

As the rent was not restricted there appears to be no issue around a significantly high or exceptionally high decision so you just need to find out from the LA if the rent officer made a "size and rent" decision on the case. If not, then as long as the tenancy agreement specifies that the rent will be increased in September, you can certainly argue the rent should be rerefered due to a change relating to a rent allowance.

Could you argue that the tenancy is contractual as contractual tenancies should be excluded from the 52 week rule and can be referred to the rent officer at any time? If the rent is increased by some pre-set criteria such as a price index etc that could be sufficient. Another example is an assured tenancy, which should be considered contractual because rent increases are implied. Similarly, I would have thought that a housing association tenancy was contractual as renewals are implied, due to the security in a housing association tenancy.

I hope this makes sense or I can try to clarify further!