Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
HB proof of rent increase
I have an upcoming Tribunal, my cl had a rent increase , his landlord passed a letter through his door, not addressed to my cl or signed by the landlord asking for an increase in rent for the park home my cl lives in. This is the usual MO of the landlord who is uncooperative and obdurate . My cl passed on the information the LA and asked for his HB to be adjusted to take into account the rent increase.
The LA are saying this note from the landlord is insufficient evidence, I have written to the landlord as has my cl and also spoken to him, he acknowledges it was note from him but refuses to provide any more information such as a signed letter, my cl has been paying the increase in rent.
the issue for the Tribunal hinge son the required evidence by the LA,
#any ideas or case law please that may help. I posted about this in another thread but it seemed to get bogged down in issues about the legality of the request by the landlord and the tenancy side of it, !!!!!
The starting point should be whether he is liable to pay it. Some rent increases can be challenged (not sure about park homes), but the general rule is once the tenant pays it this option is gone. I would have thougt evidence of payments would be very strong evidence. The counter-argument would almost have to be along the lines of taking advantage of the HB scheme by not doing enough to challenge, which is bordering on the fanciful in a commercial arrangement where the tenant might risk eviction by not paying what is asked.
the issue for the Tribunal hinge son the required evidence by the LA,
It categorically does not.
Housing Benefit is paid to meet one’s liability for rent (s130(1)(a) SSCBA).
If you are liable for a sum, you will get Housing Benefit for it (subject to the usual limits).
If you are not liable for a sum, you do not get Housing Benefit for it.
If your client is liable for the higher rent then he will win his appeal.
If your client is not liable for the higher rent, then he will lose his appeal (although on the plus side, he won’t have to pay the higher rent).
What the local authority would or would not have accepted as sufficient evidence for their purposes is wholly irrelevant to any of this.
To save others the bother of looking at what you were asking before and what was suggested to you, here’s that thread.
HB evidence to support claim [ lack of ]”
When you talk of as getting “bogged down”, I would contend what happened was actually people trying to help you understand why it’s unlikely that your client’s appeal can succeed.
I still remain of the opinion that this is primarily a housing dispute as against a benefit dispute.
[If your client is not liable for the higher rent, then he will lose his appeal (although on the plus side, he won’t have to pay the higher rent).
What the local authority would or would not have accepted as sufficient evidence for their purposes is wholly irrelevant to any of this.
Surely it’s entirely possible that the HB appeal will be thrown out but the client will still feel obliged to pay the higher rent regardless?
[If your client is not liable for the higher rent, then he will lose his appeal (although on the plus side, he won’t have to pay the higher rent).
What the local authority would or would not have accepted as sufficient evidence for their purposes is wholly irrelevant to any of this.
Surely it’s entirely possible that the HB appeal will be thrown out but the client will still feel obliged to pay the higher rent regardless?
“Feel” being the operative word.
Thanks everyone for your helpful comments, i see the point about the eligibility and the housing costs and do appreciate all the help.
for the sake of argument if we assume the tenant is liable to pay the increased rent and all the other issues raised are settled the LA is saying in it’s submissions that they won’t pay the extra HB because the landlord has not provide a signed letter confirming the amount. The LA has put the quality of the evidence of the increase at the heart of it’s submission. The LA refers to regulation 67 [1] of HB regs in effect that the claimant must furnish evidence o support the claim
My argument is that the claimant has provide all in his power to support the claim for HB
The LA specifically say that the standard of evidence provided is not to the standard needed by the LA
What caselaw or information on standard of evidence is available to rebut the LA ?
The only decision referenced in Findlay is CH 2555 2007 - this is about the termination of a CTS award due to the claimant refusing a home visit.
However, the key point for your case is that this tells us that the Tribunal must decide for itself on the facts whether the information required by the local authority was reasonably required - in your client’s case, I’d be fairly certain that the Tribunal would take the view that asking your client to supply appropriate evidence of the increase in pitch fees is indeed justified if they are going to consider increasing the HB award.
thanks Paul, yes i am sure it was reasonably required by the LA but my client has taken every step to provide it but without success, will the Tribunal accept he has done enough to satisfy the rules ???
Let’s pretend that instead of talking about an increase of rental liability, your case was about your client claiming an increased entitlement due to having a child.
The Council ask him for evidence of the child’s existence. He does not provide it. The Council says “we are refusing to increase your award because there is insufficient evidence that the child exists”.
Your client appeals. He has very good reasons for not being able to supply evidence that the child exists. The Judge accepts that he has acted reasonably in not providing it.
That doesn’t take him anywhere, because he still needs to prove the child exists to get the increased benefit.
So, it comes down to whether or not the Judge accepts on the balance of probabilities that the child exists.
Your case is the same. If the client can persuade the Judge that the evidence shows on the balance of probabilities that the increased liability is due from him then he will win his appeal. The Council’s assertions about duties to provide evidence do not add anything to that.
You seem to be inviting the Judge to conclude that an increased liability does exist because the combination of (1) the letter from the landlord (2) the history of payments and (3) your client’s account - allows some sort of liability to be implied. It is down to the Judge to decide whether or not that is sufficient.
(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)
[ Edited: 5 May 2022 at 02:01 pm by Elliot Kent ]Just to add to Elliot’s post: a failure to supply evidence can only theoretically lead to a suspension, followed possibly by a full termination of benefit (which the Council are not doing in this case). The failure is not in itself grounds for refusing to revise an award.
The decision on a revision request will always depend on the Council/Tribunal taking a view as to where balance of probabilities lies. This will of course depend on the quality of the evidence provided. A failure to comply with a requirement to supply evidence does not directly affect this. (It can have an indirect effect, if the Council/Tribunal wish to make an adverse inference as to the facts due to the failure to comply with a reasonable request to provide the evidence.)
[ Edited: 5 May 2022 at 02:19 pm by Charles ]Thank you Elliot and Charles this is most helpful. The problem with the technicalities is that our landlord has no interest in them and my client who is acting for his aged mother who is the tenant does not wish to challenge the increase out of fear of the landlord and a perceived risk to her tenancy if she does not pay. So yes it all hinges on the evidence available and the balance of probabilities.
We sometimes have to accept that what our client wants is not what we want or would advise. We can only give them the information and let them make an informed decision on what’s best for them.
What protections are there in England from eviction in this circumstance? Sounds like that might be a more realistic route to go down.
Say you win the appeal - presumably the landlord would start this issue all over again within the next couple of years at most. For that matter, he may well do it even if you lose the appeal and your client continues to pay out of her other benefits.
What protections are there in England from eviction in this circumstance? Sounds like that might be a more realistic route to go down.
Say you win the appeal - presumably the landlord would start this issue all over again within the next couple of years at most. For that matter, he may well do it even if you lose the appeal and your client continues to pay out of her other benefits.
I set this out in the post from the other thread https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/18078/#85585
So yes it all hinges on the evidence available and the balance of probabilities.
Yes but it is evidence of an actual, as opposed to imaginary, liability which you need to provide which is why we are all so concerned with what an actual liability would look like.
I give in, perhaps your client will get lucky and find a sympathetic judge who will be bamboozled by all of this.
I understand the desire to go down the path that would ultimately be least stressful for the client. HB pays new rent = content landlord and happy client. The only losing party would be the LA.
Any other option either causes an antagonistic relationship with the landlord, or eviction.
Looks like the crux of the issue is that your client is worried about being evicted and, unlike the people on this forum, doesn’t have the knowledge to reliably fend that off. She also presumably doesn’t have the money or grit that affords flexibility to give up her home and find a new one.
What your client does have though, is advice and representation. I’m not nearly as knowledgeable as Elliot or Paul, especially concerning issues south of the border, but it sounds like you’d be on surer footing supporting your client with the housing issue. A more reliable outcome, if less desirable.