Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Rent increase not effective until anniversary of HB claim
I have a client who has been claiming HB for a short period of time, their anniversary date is in Sept. In October, their rent was almost doubled as a result of ending their employment due to ill health (rent was subsidised by the employer/landlord) and the local authority are stating that although the rent increase is only up to the local housing allowance figure the increase will not effect the housing benefit award until after the anniversary date and apparently this has been taken to tribunal.
Is anyone aware of the tribunal case or if the LA are correct. Their advice is to break the HB claim for one week to get a new claim with the current LHA figure.
I have been asked about this also. Will be interested to know what happens with the appeal. As far as I can see an increase in rent is not considered a ‘relevant change in circs’ that would trigger a reassessment of the LHA award but I’m still investigating it.
The LA are correct - DWP guidance given below.
Rent increases or decreases which occur between anniversary dates will not affect the maximum rent even where, for example, there is a mid-year change in contractual rent. This means that once a maximum rent has been determined it will continue to apply until the next anniversary date unless there a relevant change,
HB and HB (SPC) reg 13C(2)(d)(i) (ii), (iii)
When we get these we just put in for Discretionary HB on the basis that the landlord will evict if the rent is not paid. They usually pay this up until the aniversity date to avoid a homeless situation.
thanks, DHP is a good option.
Is it relevant if the tenancy began in December 2007 i.e. prior to the LHA introduction? Would the anniversary date be December or can it change to April at the whim of the local authority?
Also could the landlord with tenant’s consent grant a new tenancy at a higher rent and then have the claim reassessed on that basis or would there have to be a break in claim of 7 days first?
gcrow - My concern in this case is that if the landlord/employer (ok, now former employer) are one & the same, and the accommodation & employment were linked, as is suggested by the fact that the landlord/employer was subsidising the rent until the employment ended, then should LHA have been paid at all until the employment ceased? It appears from my quick reading that it’s a tied accommodation & maybe shouldn’t have been paid.
That would put you in a situation where there’s a 1 month overpayment, but a valid claim from October, which would give the client the LHA rate & a review date of October.
Nickyswllc - The start date of tenancy is irrelevant if the LHA claim didn’t start at the same time. The LHA review date is initially set by the date of claim, and would only change as a result of relevant changes - i.e. needing more/less bedrooms, moving property.
It appears from my quick reading that it’s a tied accommodation & maybe shouldn’t have been paid.
Even if that turns out to be true for the period in which it was “tied”, surely the o/p would be non-recoverable on the grounds that it was paid in error and your client didn’t contribute to the overpayment nor could your client reasonably have been expected to realise s/he was being overpaid etc? So long as the clmt answered the questions on the claim form correctly and didn’t otherwise fail to disclose or misrep a material fact, any appeal *should* be a slam-dunk (or at least as close to one as is possible in benefits).
Which would be an excellent result if it meant that the review date still become October when there was a valid claim… (I know, I’m dreaming now, aren’t I?)