Hi.... A porperty has been deemed by one department of a Local Authority as unfit for habitation and the landlord was issued a mandatory repair order.

The tenant left and that deprtment did not enforce the repair order on the landlord.

The landlord does not do any repairs but then gets a new tenant. who makes a claim for HB

Can, or should, HB be paying a landlord on a property that is (still) unfit for habitation ?

After a long pause while everyone thought about it....................the answer is........
Possibly.... or possibly not.
Moral judgements aside (which the HB regs dont give us the power to make anyway), was a prohibition order given against the property? If not, then there would appear to be no reason why HB would not be payable.

Hb depends on occupation (does he live there), and liability (does he have a legally enforceable duty to pay). if the liability cannot be enforced because there is a legal restriction (eg Housing Act prohibition order) on occupation, then HB is not payable. If theres no restriction, the liability can be enforced and HB is payable.

Thanks.... there is a prohibition order... would the overpayment created be taken from the landlord ?

well that depends too.

did the claimant know there was a prohibition order? Who had the HB payments? did the prohibition order say the property was not to be let?

Depends who knew what and how or whether they contributed to the overpayment.

"if the liability cannot be enforced because there is a legal restriction ". How does this mean that there is no liability between the tenant and the landlord?

Reg 12 HB Regs lists a long list of periodical payments which make someone liable to pay for HB purposes, including payments in respect of or in consequence of use and occupation of the property. The key thing is that the liability to pay is enforceable. Does a prohibition order remove this liability between landlord and tenant?

Bear in mind that in CH/3579/2003 and CH/257/2005 it was held that absence of a S 48 Notice to a tenant (which means rent is treated as not paid) still means that there is liability to pay and HB is thus payable. I also recall there's a similar decision from years ago about owners who let their property in breach of the terms of their mortgage.