Claiming HB with two tenancies?

Hello all,

My client has has had a sole tenancy in London since 2000, and claimed HB/CTB on that tenancy between 2008 and 2009. She moved out of the property, stopped the HB/CTB claim and took up a second tenancy in a different local authority between May 2009 and August 2010. She claimed HB/CTB at the second property. She has now moved back to the original property, and needs to claim HB/CTB there again as she is on JSA.

Here’s the sticking point. She never terminated the original tenancy; her son moved into the property when she moved out and paid the rent and council tax independently as he was working. She did not declare this tenancy to the second local authority, although she did give her original property as her forwarding address when she cancelled her claim with them. She is now not sure if she has committed any sort of fraud and is not sure if she can re-claim HB now she is back at her original address.

I don’t think she has commtted fraud in that she did not make a claim on two addresses at the same time, but I am not sure about the issue of holding two tenancies - is it legal? - , and the issue of declaring this.  Would she be in line for any sort of overpayment recovery?

Also she is now considering signing a new joint tenancy at her with her son, to replace the sole tenancy. Would this help or hinder matters with regards to making a HB/CTB claim?

Many thanks.

Apart from a few remaining Rent Act tenancies still floating around, most tenancies will now be either secure (local authority) or assured/assured shorthold (private or housing association).  The requirement for such a tenancy under the 1985 and 1988 Housing Acts is that the dwelling is the only or principle home.  For Rent Act tenancies the dwelling had to be the only home.

My view is that once the first dwelling ceased to be her only or principle home then her tenancy ceased to be secure/assured and became one at common law.  There is nothing, in itself, unlawful or fraudulent about her situation.  It is simply an issue of security of tenure and determining what the contractual obligations of the parties are.  Her son has no interest in the dwelling other than as a licensee of hers.  Thus the original tenancy agreement is dead and she and the landlord need to create a new one, either sole or joint. 

The only hitch could be the attitude of the landlord.  Some might have taken steps to evict the son if the true situation was known but as long as the rent was paid what’s the problem?  HB shouldn’t be a problem.  It was, all other things being equal, properly paid on the second property while it was the dwelling usually occupied as her home and should be payable on any new or subsisting right to occupy the first property as her home from the time she moves back in as long as she is legally liable for the rent and barring issues of contrivance, etc.

One other thing.  I’m assuming that neither she or her son lied to or misled anyone to shortcut any housing problems they might have had.

Thanks for that.

There was no housing problem involved, just a complicated personal situation….. She has now put in a HB claim so we will wait and see what the outcome is.

I agree with nevip.  The number of tenancies doesn’t, in itself, matter for HB purposes.  What counts is the address that is her normal home.  If there is a liability on the dwelling occupied as the normal home, HB is payable (subject to being otherwise entitled).

However, if the LA discovers the claimant does hold more than one tenancy, don’t be surprised if lots of questions get asked about where the claimant normally lives and why she continues to hold additional tenancies.