× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Client refused LHA as the property is not registered for council tax

aranhe
forum member

Royal British Legion

Send message

Total Posts: 7

Joined: 5 September 2016

I have directed the client to Shelter and the council homeless team as if the matter is not resolved then, long term, he will be homeless but wonder if anyone had any experience of a similar situation and how they resolved it, if they did.  I cannot take this on as casework as client is moving to an area outside my remit and the CA there is not taking calls due to shortage of staff. 

Client has signed a six month fixed tenancy on a granny flat attached to the landlord’s house. It has separate entrance and facilities but has never been registered for CT purposes. Client paid his deposit and first months rent and moves in tomorrow but has now been told he is not eligible for LHA as the property is not banded for CT and he will not be eligible until it is.
He has called the Council tax team, and they have told him there is a long wait before the property can be banded and registered.

This leaves him in no-man’s land and as his only income is SRP, he has already struggled to pay the one month in advance plus a £1000 deposit. He will be near destitute this month, and unable to pay his rent going forward which will ultimately lead to him losing his home.

I have told him to read his tenancy agreement and have it ready when he contacts Shelter and I’m hopeful him contacting the homeless team might result in some joined-up thinking and help despite him not being within the 56 day period but as he got short shrift from the benefits department, it’s a long shot.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

There is no rule that HB cannot be awarded just because a property is not registered for council tax.

You said that the client has not yet moved into the property but that he has “been told” that he won’t be eligible.

If he hasn’t moved in yet then he probably hasn’t actually claimed HB. There is a difference between what you are told by people on the helpline and what the council actually do in response to a claim. It usually isn’t too wise to put much faith in the sort of off-the-cuff advice you get on these sorts of enquiries.

What he needs to do is to claim HB tomorrow when he moves in. In the event that the council actually decide he is not entitled to HB for that reason, he needs to appeal that decision as it would be wrong.

aranhe
forum member

Royal British Legion

Send message

Total Posts: 7

Joined: 5 September 2016

Thank you! This will be a great relief to the client.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

One more thing. This would not be an insurmountable problem but it does raise questions about commerciality and perhaps residing in same dwelling (which is where they might be going with the Council Tax issue). I suspect the landlord is probably his son or daughter, am I right? In which case the panic about destitution doesn’t sound plausible.  Just covering all the bases here.

aranhe
forum member

Royal British Legion

Send message

Total Posts: 7

Joined: 5 September 2016

This is actually a commercial arrangement and the client is not related to the landlord.  There was a previous tenant of two years duration, I’m told, but we don’t know if he was claiming LHA.  I do have another client whose mother is resident in a granny flat owned by the daughter, and the local council there insisted that it had to be banded for CT. The mother is currently paying CT,  although I think the annexe may actually be exempt as I think the the 96 year old mother would count as a dependent relative.

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 958

Joined: 24 November 2017

The background issue to this is that letting the ‘granny flat’ on a commercial basis may be a breach of planning permission. However that is (initially at least) a potential issue for the landlord and does not affect the tenant’s entitlement to claim help with the rent

Prisca
forum member

benefits section (training & accuracy) Bristol city council

Send message

Total Posts: 198

Joined: 20 August 2015

again, i think thios is gointo be about commerciality - the fsact is not banded as a sparate property when its being let as a separate dwelling may point towards that, biut more likely the local authority will want to see the energy performance cert for the property, the gas safety /electrical safety certs - THESE ARE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE to a tenant prior to the tenancy agreement being signed. its a criminal offence for those things not to be provided.
Certainly, it makes it a lot simpler to make a decision on commerciality, regardless o any relationship between landlrd and tenant

Sounds very peculiat to asay something isnt eleigible before a claim is made based on the fact the property isnt listed/banded for Ctax ...thin ice

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 958

Joined: 24 November 2017

Still seems to be that whether or not the let is legal is a separate issue to whether or not the tenant has an obligation to pay rent to be permitted to stay in the property they occupy.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

I agree Ian. We’ve dealt with a similar case recently and as noted above, some of the difficulties raised lie more with the landlord than the tenant as such. If there is a liability to pay rent, then the HB claim should be considered as with any other claim and if the LA think it’s not a commercial arrangement for whatever reasons, they need to make out their case, not simply point to the absence of CT as being somehow a defining factor.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I don’t agree that this stands or falls on commerciality. The issues described re: certifications are to do with a safe and legitimate tenancy but the case law is already clear that a commercial arrangement can still exist even when the legitimacy of the tenancy itself is ultimately in question. There is a liability to pay rent. Registration for CT is neither here nor there.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Probably my fault that we got sidetracked here as I guessed wrongly that the landlord was a close relative.  The significance of irregularities around gas safety, planning permission etc can be that they highlight a closer than arm’s length relationship[ between the parties: “we know we shouldn’t really be doing/not doing these things, but who cares as it’s all in the family” can indicate something non-commercial.  But that is far less relevant in the OP case where there is no family connection.

Nor is Council Tax valuation particularly relevant if the landlord is not a close relative.  If they were closely related there could be an issue.  You cannot get a UC housing element if the closely related landlord “lives in the accommodation”.  It is a condition of entitlement to a UC housing element that the claimant occupies the dwelling, and “dwelling” for this purpose has the same meanings as in the LGFA 1992 (i.e. same as Council Tax), which takes you further back to rating “hereditaments”:

“property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of such property which is, or would fall to be, shown as a separate item in the valuation list”.

If “accommodation” means the same thing as “dwelling”, and “lives in” means the same thing as “occupies” it is perhaps arguable that you are precluded from getting UC for liability to a close relative in an annexe that does not have its own Council Tax banding.  Ten again, the definition refers to property that would fall to be listed, not just property which has been listed, so again perhaps failure to declare the construction to the valuation office is not automatically fatal to a UC housing element even between relatives.  It does raise big questions about commerciality though where relatives are involved, less so if the parties are strangers or not that close anyway.