× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Renting privately from a social landlord -does the LHA apply

 < 1 2

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

Steve….This looks to be going wrong.

I am sure the motivation of all parties in this was to help…...

Still….... the starting point has to be they are tenants, with rights, who are worried about their homes.

I would be inclined if you are unable to give good quality Housing Advice yourself…..to contact NHAS….

http://www.nhas.org.uk/ as an agency you are going possibly to now have a number of difficult issues.


Best of Luck…...

 

 

stevemac
forum member

Horsham CAB, West Sussex

Send message

Total Posts: 117

Joined: 24 April 2012

Hi Martin -  rest assured we will seek NHAS help with this if/when we are approached by any tenants affected - many thanks

Ali P
forum member

Tenancy sustainment - Hillcrest Homes

Send message

Total Posts: 46

Joined: 15 March 2013

stevenmcavoy - 10 May 2016 11:54 AM
Jac - 06 May 2016 12:03 PM

Some HA’s have separate subsidiary businesses set up to run their mid-market and market rent properties. May be worth checking if these are HA properties or owned by a different part of or different business but managed by the HA.

is this common in scotland?  ive never heard of it.

Hi Steven

I work for Hillcrest Housing and we have a few hundred mid market rent properties. It comes under a separate business though. The tenants are subject to LHA & are on short assured tenancies.

Jac
forum member

Welfare benefits adviser - Melville Housing Association, Midlothian

Send message

Total Posts: 146

Joined: 16 June 2010

Similar here- different type of application process and different tenancy agreement.

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

Yes Housing Associations are changing rapidly.

Take the L and Q,  Hyde, East Thames merger….

The Proposal is for 100,000 homes over the next decade. How many are new social homes…..?

Of the target of 100,000 over ten years, there will be 25,000 new homes for first time buyers, 25,000 new homes for so called affordable rent, (Those are the ones that require checks to see if the tenants can actually afford them) .... that leaves 50,000 new homes for market rent and sale.


So the answer, if I have correctly done the math….is um…tricky one this….need my calculator…....err…. 0.


http://www.lqgroup.org.uk/services-for-residents/media-centre/news/news/2016/4/6/landq-the-hyde-group-and-east-thames-to-merge/

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 869

Joined: 22 August 2013

interesting to know.  looks like i will need to be more careful in future if a client tells me their landlord is a social one to make sure it isnt via a separate company.

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

Yes…... I am learning from this thread. I guess my (old incorrect) ideas that…..  Association tenants (approximately =) Council tenants are a bit lazy.

Things have moved on.


Both councils and Housing associations are doing creative things, buying up properties, and then charging market type rents.

Have the HB regs caught up?

MichelleC
forum member

Welfare benefit adviser, mhs Homes Medway

Send message

Total Posts: 2

Joined: 17 May 2013

MartinB - 09 May 2016 10:22 AM
Jac - 06 May 2016 12:03 PM

Some HA’s have separate subsidiary businesses set up to run their mid-market and market rent properties. May be worth checking if these are HA properties or owned by a different part of or different business but managed by the HA.

Aha…

I suggest you check this out as we have several subsidiary businesses and some of our properties are assessed under LHA rules

stevemac
forum member

Horsham CAB, West Sussex

Send message

Total Posts: 117

Joined: 24 April 2012

Hi all - raising this again for clarity
Eventually the HB section concerned accepted that LHA did not apply and following RO referral a rent figure was set at a little less than the actual contractual rent due of £952.75 pcm -  the client did not want to appeal the decision

Client moved in with her son (2 bed property). He has just moved out and LA have asked the RO to review eligible rent.  From HB’s earlier notes,  I assume the new eligible rent figure should be contractual rent less 14%  reduction for the spare bedroom?

many thanks

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

If HB is currently based on an individual RO determination (sounds like it is), the change in the household will trigger a fresh referral to the Rent Officer, who will set a new valuation for notional identical but smaller accommodation.  It will probably reduce, but not necessarily by 14%.

stevemac
forum member

Horsham CAB, West Sussex

Send message

Total Posts: 117

Joined: 24 April 2012

Many thanks Peter- client just dropped in a copy of her revised HB award following new decision made by the RO

starts off with
” rent charged £952.75” 
“under occupied reduction amount £25.72 - this reduction has been made from your eligible rent because you are under occupying your home by 1 bedroom”

letter then ends with

“therefore your weekly HB will be £156.79”

Does not make any sense

Client wants to appeal decision as net effect of this is previous HB award was £895 pcm (against rent of £952.75)
new award seems to be equivalent of £679.42 pcm -reduction of £273.33 pcm - a lot more than 14%

Peter -  any danger of client’s position being made worse by challenging this latest HB award?

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

I have a theory and it’s good news and bad news: I dont think there is a risk it will reduce further, but I don’t think it will go up either because I think it is probably correct.

I understood from your earlier message that the HB eligible rent was based on a Rent Officer’s valuation, because the Council considered the rent to be unreasonably high and therefore not excluded from RO referral despite the landlord being a registered provider.  The RO valuation came back close enough to the full rent and the claimant was content to leave it at that.  Nagging worry #1.

The son moves out, which should trigger a fresh RO referral.  I mean, if the Council thought the rent was unreasonably high for two of them it surely must be unreasonable for just one, right? 

Now my theory.  Nagging worry #1 above is that they based HB on the Claim Related Rent (a property market valuation) rather than the Local Reference Rent (average bog standard rent for similar size accommodation).  I thought 895 looked a bit high for a 2B LRR.  I think what might have happened is that they have re-referred to the Rent Officer because of the change in the household and this time they have (correctly) used the LRR, which will be for one-bed accommodation because that is what the claimant needs.  In support of that theory, look at the market evidence used to set the LHA for the Crawley/Reigate BRMA.  The LRR is a mathematical average of the rents in a refined range (ignoring exceptionally high and exceptionally low rents).  The graph is for LHA, but it is market evidence for one bedders in the same area so it does provide a useful benchmark.  Looking at that graph, if you snip off the bits where the line climbs steeply at the low and high ends, you are left with a range in which the average could very well be somewhere around the £160-ish mark.

So I am guessing the claimant’s HB is the one-bed LRR.  She got lucky before - they paid the CRR when the two of them were occupying and that CRR was higher than the 2B LRR would have been, Council’s mistake, they won’t try to claw it back.  But now they have done it right going forward.  As for challenging, I don’t think it could get any worse: LRR is the rock bottom achievable HB rate.  But there isn’t a lot of scope to challenge it.  She would have to argue that the rent is not unreasonably high for the dwelling and that it should therefore not have been referred to the RO, in which case she is entitled to 86% of the full rent under normal bedroom tax rules.

I think my first action would be to ask them whether they have re-referred to the RO and whether the eligible rent is a 1B LRR; if not, how was the eligible rent arrived at?

stevemac
forum member

Horsham CAB, West Sussex

Send message

Total Posts: 117

Joined: 24 April 2012

Thanks again Peter - will ask for clarification but does not look good for my client as she will not be able to pay increased rent shortfall

She has twice been offered alternative normal HA properties (the rents for which which would be fully covered by HB) and refused them both as unsuitable , we can request DHP’s but obviously not a long term solution