Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
HB proof of rent increase
thank you for this, yes I see the point about protection from eviction but my client does not want to have to go down that route, the landlord is an unpleasant character as I have said a number of times. he may not have followed the correct format to increase rent but there is nothing to stop him doing so if he decided which would leave us in the same situation but with a great deal of bad feeling between landlord and tenant. He has increased the rent and the tenant is currently paying the increased amount, if HB will accept the liability and if the Tribunal will allow the appeal this is what my client prefers at this time.
With respect, there is something to stop him, it’s the law that covers park homes residents and as I keep saying, the local authority can be approached to take action where park home owners aren’t following the legal processes that they should be, whether that is issuing unlawful demands to increase fees or threatening to evict someone.
Thank you Paul and other contributors. As I have said my client is acting for his 90 year old mother who is his main concern, we are aware of the law and that the LA can step in to assist, however this landlord is a very difficult character, I have spoken to him, he has no respect for the law or the LA, He has lied to me about providing information and makes endless untruthful excuses for not doing so. My cl has made an informed decision that he will take this to the Tribunal as a HB issue but will not take steps that could lead to any distress or upset to his mother by challenging it as a tenancy issue. It is not a large increase in rent and my client has decided that this is the course of action he wishes to take and I must respect that .
(Of course, we have established that the rent hasn’t actually been increased because the landlord hasn’t used the appropriate pitch fee review form (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pitch-fee-review-form-park-homes) and that therefore there isn’t actually a rent increase and your client doesn’t need to pay it but apparently we are just going to overlook this sort of dry technicality)
I’m still concerned that by paying it, this amounts to an agreement between the parties to increase the fee, irrespective of the validity of the increase if it had been imposed unilaterally. This is the position with rent in other types of housing.
(Of course, we have established that the rent hasn’t actually been increased because the landlord hasn’t used the appropriate pitch fee review form (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pitch-fee-review-form-park-homes) and that therefore there isn’t actually a rent increase and your client doesn’t need to pay it but apparently we are just going to overlook this sort of dry technicality)
I’m still concerned that by paying it, this amounts to an agreement between the parties to increase the fee, irrespective of the validity of the increase if it had been imposed unilaterally. This is the position with rent in other types of housing.
The difference is that there is specific statutory intervention for mobile homes which prevents parties from just informally agreeing an increase. This is in Sch 1, para 17 and 25A Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended by the Mobile Homes Act 2013).
If we were dealing with a tenancy of a house, there isn’t an equivalent provision so it might be open to the parties to create a binding liability informally.
Elliot I understood that its only if the parties object to the increase that it goes to a tribunal in Park Homes rules, !!!
But even though it may be an imaginary liability my client has accepted it and the LA have also not demurred on the issue of liability, so as you say if we get a Judge who supports the appeal it might have a favorable outcome. ,
I can only do what my client instructs. I spoke to the HB appeal officer today on person and he confirms the only point of contention for the LA is the evidence to support the rent increase. As the landlord would no doubt follow the correct process if forced to do so and put the rent up anyway the outcome would be the same for all parties , except we would have a very waspish landlord and a very frightened tenant.
I am starting to feel a bit like Leonidas at Thermopylae here, ;)
The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001
(4) A person to whom paragraph (2) refers must—
(a)furnish the information or evidence needed within a period of—
(i)one month beginning with the date on which the notification under paragraph (3) was sent to him; or
(ii)such longer period as the relevant authority considers necessary in order to enable him to comply with the requirement; or
(b)satisfy the relevant authority within the period provided for in paragraph (4)(a) that—
(i)the information or evidence so required does not exist; or
(ii)it is not possible for him to obtain the information or evidence so required.
(5) Where a person satisfies the requirements in paragraph (4), the relevant authority shall, so far as practicable, make, or as the case may be restore, the payment within 14 days of the decision to make or restore that payment.
[ Edited: 9 May 2022 at 03:19 pm by Diogenes ]
Elliot I understood that its only if the parties object to the increase that it goes to a tribunal in Park Homes rules, !!!
But even though it may be an imaginary liability my client has accepted it and the LA have also not demurred on the issue of liability, so as you say if we get a Judge who supports the appeal it might have a favorable outcome. ,
It doesn’t need to go to the Tribunal if it is agreed - see para 17(3) - it is just necessary for the landlord to provide a notice in the terms of para 25A. Once that is done, your client agrees it and HB pays it instantly without fuss. If para 25A is not complied with then, as per the terms of para 17(2A), the notice (viz. the letter stuffed in your client’s letterbox) is “of no effect”. And its lack of effect goes just as much for HB as it does inter partes.
(Also, para 17(11)-(12) would appear to apply to your client’s situation so that they would be entitled to apply for an order requiring the landlord to repay the funds to them which would be rather awkward if they are to have those funds covered by HB).
I am starting to feel a bit like Leonidas at Thermopylae here, ;)
I do hope it has a better outcome for you…
[ Edited: 9 May 2022 at 04:05 pm by Elliot Kent ]Thanks Elliot, well I hope its a better outcome for my client , The LA did pay up a few years ago when the same situation happened with this very same client and they have helpfully said so in their submission to the Tribunal, so they set a precedent for themselves !!!. The LA accepted at that time my client had done all they could to get the evidence and that it was unlikely the landlord would provide any more detailed information.
I have primed my client to make sure if this happens again that he does not pay the increase but sends the landlord and the LA copies of the Park Home rules. I don’t intend to fight this battle twice.