Hi All
Any thoughts on this

Client has been living in private rented accomodation for 13 months over 60 and on full H/B and CTB Landlord lives in London so client deals with landlords mother in Liverpool. Client has started relationship with landlords mother and they intend to marry and continue living in same accomodation.As he will then be the landlords father in law would this compromise his entitlement to H/B ?

I haven't looked this up but I think that as the landlord does not live in the acommodation it should be OK.

Check reg 9 of the HB (SPC) regs. If client's partner is under 60, might be worth a comparison with reg 9 of the ordinary HB regs to check which one should be the claimant as one version of the reg might be more favourable than the other.

Although the term 'contrived' tenancy is generally used, the statutory wording is 'liability created to take advantage of the housing benefit scheme' (reg 9(1)(l) of both the HB and HB(SPC) Regs). The use of the word 'created' implies that only circumstances which pertained at the start of the tenancy should be considered. Your client began the tenancy 13 months ago, and is only now considering marriage to the landlord's mother. Marriage/LT should not compromise his entitlement to HB.

It is notable that the word used in HBR 9(1)(l) is "liability"; not "tenancy" (compare to sub para "a").

I think the application of HBR 9(1)(l) is NOT limited to the outset of a tenancy. In CH/3458/2002, Cmmr Fellner found otherwise, but my view is that this was wrongly decided because the Cmmr relied on the word "tenancy", not "liability".

More recently, in CH/0039/2007 (para 49), Cmmr Jacobs observed (obiter) that a change in rent, or change in the terms of an agreement, could engage HBR 9(1)(l).

Just last year (2008), at the invitation of a LA, I attended a legal conference where this precise point was discussed (this was in respect of cases where a L/L had more or less doubled the rent levels overnight). The barrister was unequivocal in his view, agreeing with the LA, that a change in rent could properly be regarded as being the creation of a new liability.

It is difficult to see how this interpretation won't be tested as some point - quite possibly in the context of "exempt accommodation".

For transparency, I continue to assist LAs in cases where matters related to "exempt accommodation" are at issue.