Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
having a really bad day…
I’m an HA benefits adviser. LA have sent out the bedroom tax letters to those affected. I’m now getting the “what are we going to do” phone calls. It’s quite emotionally difficult, especially where there are disabilities.
As an organisation we are offering help with downsizing, finding employment, benefits etc but for some people there is no option except to pay and hopefully qualify for a DHP if the LA ever get around to agreeing an appplication process.
And this is just the beginning…
It’s looking very grim isn’t it :-(
Ref any of the cases with disabilities, is there a case to use the Burnip/Trengove/Gorry argument? I know that this is now with the Supreme Court, but until a decision overturning this, case law is very much in favour of people with disabilities who need an extra bedroom for themselves, especially if supported by medical experts.
I’m looking for a case I can argue from a tenant’s perspective on the number of bedrooms. Someone who has the rooms but isn’t allowed to use them because of landlord’s restrictions ideally.
What, exactly, are the landlord’s restricions and what type of lease does he have?
I’m thinking of a situation where, for example, a landlord puts a single person in a hard to let two bedroom flat but forbids sub-letting. I think either social or private tenant is fundamentally the same but a social tenant would be easier because of:
a) the clarity of the bedroom tax
b) because it wouldn’t matter if they were paying rent below the LHA level
c) getting information from the landlord would be easier
Hi Gareth
Assured shorthold tenancies usually have a clause forbidding subletting absolutely. This can be re-negotiated. Housing Association tenants can sublet but with permission from the landlord which cannot be unreasonably withheld. However, if a person has exclusive possession (a question of fact) then it is hard to see how a landlord can stop him having overnight guests as long as he is not charging rent (or whatever the tenant chooses to call it). A tenancy agreement which forbids overnight guests, where on the facts as a whole exclusive possession is proven, might well prove to be a sham agreement (see Street v Mountford (1985) HL, per Lord Templeman.
[ Edited: 9 Jan 2013 at 06:59 pm by nevip ]Hmm, off to fink a bit.
I can see where you’re coming from Gareth, and it kind of brings us back to the link I posted in another thread just before Christmas (now broken, due to new lettings lists). The example property I linked was a 3 bed, max 4 people Housing Association property, due to the size of the bedrooms. It’s really quite difficult to live in that property & not fall foul of the bedroom tax, under the maximum occupants the HA have set. A lone parent could manage it, or a couple with children with the right age & gender split, but that immediately excludes a lot of potential applicants.
Gareth
Was it this landlord you had in mind by any chance?
It’s looking very grim isn’t it :-(
Ref any of the cases with disabilities, is there a case to use the Burnip/Trengove/Gorry argument? I know that this is now with the Supreme Court, but until a decision overturning this, case law is very much in favour of people with disabilities who need an extra bedroom for themselves, especially if supported by medical experts.
Coincidentally, another of my local authority HB departments have just sent out their letter to people affected advising them;
If you have a child who is suffering from severe disabilities and these disabilities mean they are unable to share a bedroom you may qualify for an extra bedroom under these benefit rules. Please contact us if you think this applies to any of your children.
DWP guidance to HB departments is that if they do award extra HB based on allowing an extra bedroom, it should be suspended until the Supreme Court decision is heard.
here’s a link to that guidance - HB/CTB A6/2012 -
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a6-2012.pdf
para 11 says -
‘LAs should also bear in mind that, should an appeal by the DWP be successful, the decision will need to be reversed. They should therefore consider suspending the part of the HB award that relates to the extra room allowed as a result of the Court of Appeal judgment, pending any appeal by the DWP, under Regulation 11(2)(b) of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/1002). Any extra help can only be made available from the date of the Court of Appeal judgement, 15 May 2012.’