Section 21 and Housing Benefit Claimants - Negligence from Local Authority?

I recently saw a client who came to us after a possession hearing where a possession order was granted for a private landlord (assisted by a Letting Agent) to repossess a rented property. The Landlord used s21 correctly. The reason he did so was becuase the client separated from her partner and went from paying all the rent to claiming HB for most of the rent. The landlord did not want HB claimants renting the property.

The Court Fees for the case were around £250. The client is going to apply to have them remitted due to her low income.

The client as expected already went to the local authority to make a homelessness application. She has 2 children following a separation. The local authority typically want an eviction notice rather than accepting the case earlier down the line. However, the client and local authority knew she did not have a defence to the possession hearing and so a trial took place at an unneccessary expense. If it were a position where fees could not be remitted, does anyone have any thoughts on making a claim of negligence against the local authority for the losses suffered by the client, mainly the court costs and solicitor fees because had they accepted it was obvious the claim could not be defended, the client could have been accommodated earlier and the trial not happened?

S 17 Children Act 1989 may be of relevance regarding housing them.

Not sure about a negligence claim but you may want to look at the High Court decision in R v Croydon LBC ex p Jarvis (1994) 26 HLR 194.

Judicial review taken by assured shorthold tenant whose landlord served a valid s21 and council told her was not homeless until a court order was obtained. She sought 1) a declaration that the council had acted unlawfully and 2) damages. She lost as the court considered amongst other things that the council had considered the expense of possession proceedings, the costs of providing TA, the general circumstances in the area, and the then Homelessness Code of Guidance which said that the council should not make homeless applicants fight possession proceedings when they had no chance of success (the wording is different in the current Code at para 8.32 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homelessness-code-of-guidance-for-councils-july-2006).

However the judge did add that his decision did not give councils carte blanche to say wait until you’re evicted and where the council did not give proper reasons, its decision might be found unlawful, and if this had been the case with Ms Jarvis the judge indicated that he would have awarded her court costs and a small amount for the trauma of it all.

Thanks for the responses everyone. That’s really useful information.

Silly question ... can you actually qualify for fee remission on the landlord’s costs, which you have then been ordered to pay?

Craven CAB welfare benefits - 26 September 2013 12:27 PM

Silly question ... can you actually qualify for fee remission on the landlord’s costs, which you have then been ordered to pay?

You’re right -  a fee remission is only available to the person who has to pay the court fee, in this case the landlord. Client’s best option if costs have been awarded against her is an application to the court to vary the order so that she can pay the landlord’s costs in instalments. The CAB’s Advice Guide has useful info on how to do this
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/debt_w/debt_help_with_debt_e/changing_a_court_order_for_debt.htm

is it typical for a private landlord to evict someone who is paying their rent solely because part of that rent comes from benefits?

as long as your getting the money it seems like a strange thing to empty a house for only to refill….assuming they were paying the rest from other income of course.

stevenmcavoy - 26 September 2013 01:40 PM

is it typical for a private landlord to evict someone who is paying their rent solely because part of that rent comes from benefits?

as long as your getting the money it seems like a strange thing to empty a house for only to refill….assuming they were paying the rest from other income of course.

Starting to see it a lot more since the welfare reforms are really taking effect. To be fair I don’t blame private landlords. If I was renting out a property I would want to make sure I receive the full amount of rent due is it could leave me, myself in hardship.

This client was working 10 hours p/w so did have some additional income which meant she did not get full HB.

I do blame private landlords, for making the assumption that everybody who claims benefits is automatically incapable of managing their bills. But I am of the opinion that it isn’t always about them assuming they will face losses from rent arrears, but about general prejudice against claimants. When I was made redundant in 2011, I made damn sure my landlord and their agent didn’t know I was on benefits.

There are also other issues.  The main one is that HB is paid in arrears but private sector tenancies almost invariably require rent in advance.  That must make it very difficult indeed for someone to hide they are relying on HB. 

Another problem in a lot of cases is that HB is often not paid calendar monthly, & it can become a bit of a nightmare trying to reconcile the rent account - especially where the tenant has to pay a top up.  I had a case where this sort of thing resulted in the landlord being overpaid more than £1000 - not at all easy to get the money back, even when all the figures & proof were supplied.

Even if HB is paid calendar monthly it is not paid as a fixed sum - the amount varies from month to month depending on the number of days in the month.

All these things can be coped with, but a landlord who knows something about the system could well be put off by them - particularly if he/she can readily let the property to a non-HB tenant.