UC rent shortfall

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Yeah, there is definitely no issue of contrivance or being non commercial. If that was taken in front of a tribunal judge, they certainly wouldn't be impressed with a decision like that.

    Tbh no addendum should have been necessary. The OPs niece should have just sent bank statements for x months prior to the UC claim being made showing that they are paying £x of the rent per month. That would have likely sufficed.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Welshie View Post
      Yeah, there is definitely no issue of contrivance or being non commercial
      Where did I say it wasn't commercial? Again with the lack of reading!

      Any Tribunal hearing this would disallow the claim for rent. The tenancy is contrived. Tribunals are hierarchical. They have to obey the cases held in the higher courts. That case is; "Baragrove Properties" where it was held that only one party to a tenancy agreement need to seek to change the tenancy terms to be deemed contrived. The change in tenancy the landlord was willing to write is all the proof that is needed.

      Not saying rent isn't legally due, just that its not due from the public purse. Many people become confused b contrived/non-commercial and jump them in together, just like you've done!

      I've taken hundreds of such cases through lower tier tribunals (end before that Social Security Appeals Tribunals), and not lost a single one!

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by BobsToaster View Post
        Any Tribunal hearing this would disallow the claim for rent. The tenancy is contrived. Tribunals are hierarchical. They have to obey the cases held in the higher courts. That case is; "Baragrove Properties" where it was held that only one party to a tenancy agreement need to seek to change the tenancy terms to be deemed contrived. The change in tenancy the landlord was willing to write is all the proof that is needed.
        R v Manchester CC ex p Baragrove Properties Ltd [1991] 23 HLR 337?

        There doesn't seem to be anything in that judgement to support that interpretation.

        The tenancy isn't contrived, the tenant was actually paying a higher rent for a larger room.
        The change in the tenancy agreement simply reflects the reality of an existing situation.

        If the change had been to increase the rent (or to move into a larger room), and claim the higher figure from the benefits system, I'd agree with you.
        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
          R v Manchester CC ex p Baragrove Properties Ltd [1991] 23 HLR 337?
          Yep!

          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
          There doesn't seem to be anything in that judgement to support that interpretation
          Really? Show me any paragraph in that judgement where it states the tenant was ever consulted about the change in the tenancy agreement? They weren't so you can't! The tenant wasn't involved nor consulted. Baragrove Properties is the leading case for finding that only one party need amend a tenancy for it to fall foul of the contrivance laws in HB & UC. See case law and commentary in CPAGs yearly guide to HB/CTB as used in Tribunals when they consider contrivance in HB & UC!

          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
          The tenancy isn't contrived,
          So, as per case law and legally binding precedent, yes it is!

          Comment


            #20
            If it's an addendum to the tenancy agreement, the people comprising the joint tenancy would have to all agree it.

            Otherwise, it isn't an "addendum to the tenancy agreement", it's a random and unrelated document that has no force (and could be evidence of an attempt to deceive the DWP).
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
              If it's an addendum to the tenancy agreement
              Yes, and addendum created by the landlord specifically to enable a claim for UC! The very definition of contrivance, so so not eligible for UC rental element!

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by BobsToaster View Post
                Yes, and addendum created by the landlord specifically to enable a claim for UC! The very definition of contrivance, so so not eligible for UC rental element!
                As I see it, the purpose of the addendum was simply to overcome the DWP's presumption that every tenant paid the same fixed proportion of the rent.
                As there's only one rent in a joint tenancy, there wouldn't be any other way for that presumption, which was wrong, to be overcome.

                For something to be contrived, it has to be created for an artificial purpose, this document was created to reflect reality, the rent it documented was already in place.

                Are you suggesting that someone shouldn't receive a benefit that they were entitled to, having just lost their job, because the DWP made an incorrect presumption about their rent?
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                  Are you suggesting that someone shouldn't receive a benefit that they were entitled to, having just lost their job, because the DWP made an incorrect presumption about their rent?
                  Nope! I'm stating, not suggesting! No need for assumptions. Prima-facie, the landlord created an 'addendum' rental agreement specifying a rental amount that didn;t exist before the DWP asked how much was being charged.

                  By definition, in line with legally binding precedent, the tenant is not entitled to the UC rental element. No need for interpretation, reading tea leaves, nor sob-stories about how they will pay the rent. Its a matter of settled law, as voted for by the British public!

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X