Housing Benefit Tenancy Agreement - where client ‘s landlord is ex partner

Hello

I would be grateful for advice concerning my client who has been refused Housing Benefit under HB Reg. 9(1)(a) - the rule that stops Housing Benefit being paid to tenants whose landlord is their former partner. 

My client moved into the property (3 bed bungalow) with his partner in October 2002 .  However, their relationship ended 2 years later but his partner agreed for him to continue living in the property on the agreement that he pay rent to her.  A tenancy agreement was written up and he was provided with a rent book and he continued to pay rent to her for the next 6 years.  However, in July 2010 my client was forced to give up work due to suffering with clinical depression and sciatica, and he claimed Housing Benefit.  Due to his illness and the fact that he wasn’t ‘thinking straight’ and because of the stress of losing his job, he put on his claim form that his landlord was his partner.  However, he soon realised his error and wrote to HB stating this.  He has since spent several months providing evidence stating that his tenancy is on a commercial basis (copies of tenancy agreement, rent book, letter from his landlord etc.)

He has been told by the local authority that if his landlord evicts him, they will try to provide him with accommodation and he will probably receive most of his rent in Housing Benefit.  But, his mental and physical illness has now deteriorated so much that he has become reliant on his landlord/ex partner to help and support him with his day to day needs.  Just to add to the complexity of the case, his landlord is now suffering from stress and anxiety as she is struggling to pay the mortgage.  But, she cannnot evict him as (despite the landlord/tenant relationship), she still cares for him and doesn’t want to make his illness worse by making him homeless.

I am aware that HB Regs 2006), Reg 9(1)(C)(i) specifically states that payment of HB where the landlord is a former partner is excluded.  However, I wondered if anyone has experience of how I could challenge this (particularly as the client split with his partner/landlord in 2004 - which was 2 years before these Regs. applied presumably).

Any advice would be appreciated.

Dave Feast
Broadway

There is no discretion with HBR 9(1)(c) and therefore the LA cannot pay HB, even if it wanted to.  The personal circumstances of the claimant make no difference; all that matters is that he lives in the same dwelling as a former partner and that they were a couple in the same dwelling before they ceased to be partners.  There is no time restriction.

This provision has been the subject of several challenges, all of which have been unsuccessful.  At the top of the tree is Langley v Bradford MDC & SoS [2004] EWCA Civ 1343 in which it was argued the provision fell foul of Articles 8 & 14 (Human Rights Act).  The CA comprehensively found that there had been no breach of the HRA.

Langley:  http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1343.html  (also reported as R(H) 6/05)

For the avoidance of doubt, even though the clmt now (presumably) occupies a dwelling that is different in the narrow sense (e.g. a room is now the dwelling whereas the whole house would formerly have been the dwelling), it is sufficient for present dwelling to have been part of dwelling formerly occ with former ptnr for the purposes of HBR 9(1)(c) - CH/2207/2006 (itself following earlier authority of the High Court in Painter & Murphy).

In short, from a purely benefits perspective, there is no room for manouevre.

Maybe time to consider sitting them down together and looking at their options eg approaching the LA about MRS http://www.mortgagerescuescheme.co.uk/  Would they meet the criteria?

Kevin/Martin
Thank you for your very useful information.
Dave