Housing Benefit

real1314

rosysparkle wrote:

Where does the law state that a claimant is entitled to 100% of the rent, paid by HB?

It doesn't.

Whilst I do not expect dreary65 to understand the laws he/she lives under I do expect him her to treat other members of this forum with respect.
He/she clearly has little understanding of the Housing Act 1988.
Let me try and explain in a simple way as this might be of interest to others, so that they do not have false expectation raised by uninformed comment.

The Housing Act 1988 was enforced by Parliament after the 1977 Rent Act.

It allows statutory instruments to be used in the amendment of Rent Officer determinations.
Dreary65 appears to have little practical knowledge of HB, yet assumes a position of "knowing" so much. :eek:

and the act itslef:

"121.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order require rent officers to carry out such functions as may be specified in the order in connection with housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy.

(2) An order under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument which, except in the case of the first order to be made, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;
(b) may make different provision for different cases or classes of case and for different areas; and
(c) may contain such transitional, incidental and supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be desirable;
and the first order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(3) In subsection (7) of section 63 of the Rent Act 1977 (expenditure arising in connection with rent officers etc.), in paragraph (a) after the words "this section" there shall be inserted "or an order under section 121 of the Housing Act 1988".

(4) At the end of section 21(6) of the [1986 c. 50.] Social Security Act 1986 (regulations prescribing maximum family credit and maximum housing benefit) there shall be added the words "and regulations prescribing the appropriate maximum housing benefit may provide for benefit to be limited by reference to determinations made by rent officers in exercise of functions conferred under section 121 of the Housing Act 1988".

(5) In section 30 of that Act (housing benefit finance) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be added the words "and, in relation to rent allowance subsidy, the Secretary of State may exercise his discretion as to what is unreasonable for the purposes of paragraph (b) above by reference to determinations made by rent officers in exercise of functions conferred under section 121 of the Housing Act 1988".
(6) In section 51(1)(h) of that Act (regulations may require information etc. needed for determination of a claim) the reference to information or evidence needed for the determination of a claim includes a reference to information or evidence required by a rent officer for the purpose of a function conferred on him under this section.

(7) In this section "housing benefit" and "rent allowance subsidy" have the same meaning as in Part II of the [1986 c. 50] Social Security Act 1986."

Here endeth the lesson. Sorry to those for whom this is irrelevant, although this may be of more interest to others than the "opinions" of others.

I'll accpet your aplogy in advance dreary as I suspect you won;t bother.:rotfl:

deary65

There is little need to take things personaly.Here is a link to the housing benefit
regulations 2006.See part 8 section 70.
As i have said before a determation is an opinion as to the property's value only.
There is nothing, i can find in law giving the rent officer the authorty to set a market rent.
My kindest regards.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2006/uksi_20060213_en.pdf

real1314

You keep referring to market rent, but I, and others have pointed out that the rent officer is NOT setting a market rent. They are not affecting the Lanldord/Tenant contract. You seem to have an issue regarding this, but don't seem to be bothering to read replies that do not agree with you.

You have also referred to people being entitled to their full rent (100%) under HB rules. You have been asked to justify this advice but have failed to do so.
The purpose of these forums is to provide help, not for you to post contradictory opinions that are incorrect and irrelevant to the subject matter.

If you can't find any justification for your 100% claim, please desist from posting such opinions on subjects that you are not knowledgeable in.

deary65

Maximum bousing benefit

70. The amount of a person's appropriate maximum housing benefit in any week shall be 100 per cent, of his eligible rent calculated on a weekly basis in accordance with regulation 80 and 81 (calculation of weekly amount and rent free periods) less any deductions in respect of non-dependants which fall to be made under regulation 74 (non-dependant deductions).
Housing benefit tapers

71. The prescribed percentages for the purpose of sub-section (3)(b) of section 130 of the Act (percentage of excess of income over applicable amount which is deducted from maximum housing benefit) shall be 65 per cent.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2006/uksi_20060213_en.pdf

deary65

The tennant and the landlord have made a legally binding agreement at a price, that price is "the market rent".The rent officer has decided to reduce that rent for the purposes of benefit calulations "the rent is to high" in which the tennant recieves less than the rent agreeded.
That is the violation of a valid contract when the law says they are entitled to a 100% payment of their rent.

The only way I can see this stand up in court is if the rent officer was a party to the contract in other words the rent officer, tennant and landlord were all in agreement as to the rental value.That is may opinion, but only the court can say what the law is.

real1314
Your posts confirm what i have known for some time,that there is a great deal of confusion on this very important matter.

There is an other thread on this forum were people did not believe they were being unlawfully deprived of their money.The bank charges thread,read it.

deary65

What i have found, people cannot make sense of the benefit system. Here is a set of circumstances.
I rent a pace for £100 pw I’m in receipt of £50 pw income based jsa the minimum the law says i need to live on. The rent officer makes a determination of £80 pw result, i have left just about half what the law says i need to live on. Can anyone make sense of that?
If the rent officers decision binds the landlord then that would make sense to people.Notwithstanding you would out the door pretty quickly.

Chrysalis

deary65 wrote:

Whilst I do not expect people to understand the laws they live under I do expect government department to respect them.
You clearly have little understand of the law of contract. Let me try and explain in a simple way as this might be of interest to others.
The landlord lets and the tenant takes possession for a consideration know as a rent service i.e a money payment .What has taken please in law is an exchange of promises, the landlord promises to gives exclusive possession in return the tenant promises to pay the rent. The parties to the contract have exercised what is known as freedom to contract and they are legally bound by it and the law will hold them to it.
Now the tenant exercises their legal right to claim housing benefit whilst in possession of a legally binding agreement. The law says they are entitled to a 100 percent of their rent payed by housing benefit.
If the rent officer were lawfully authorized to set a rent, the law would hold both the tenant and the landlord to any decision reached.
You understanding in this area of the law my improve if you take the time to read the 1977 Rent Act.
Kind regards.

I think I understand what you saying, so if the law was better and the rent officer deemed the rent too high they would then also get the landlord to reduce the rent so the tenant isnt in hardship? As it stands now if they set a low housing benefit award based on the thinking the rent is too high for the property then the tenant has to make up the difference, since a contract is a contract.

Chrysalis

deary65 wrote:

What i have found, people cannot make sense of the benefit system. Here is a set of circumstances.
I rent a pace for £100 pw I’m in receipt of £50 pw income based jsa the minimum the law says i need to live on. The rent officer makes a determination of £80 pw result, i have left just about half what the law says i need to live on. Can anyone make sense of that?
If the rent officers decision binds the landlord then that would make sense to people.Notwithstanding you would out the door pretty quickly.

Would be interesting how that turned out in court, however I already know the stance they wold take.

Income based benefits automatically entitle you to full housing benefit. Full housing benefit does not necessarily mean 100% rent paid. It is subject to size of property and the if the rent is deemed appropriate. So if you was a single person and it had 2 bedrooms rent would be deducted for the extra room. The amount they deem appropriate is the more risky one, they would probably argue that you could move to somewhere cheaper.

I would think the court dispute would centre over (a) is the rent reasonable for the property in todays market (b) cheaper options available to the tenant that are still suitable.

real1314

Dreary,

"maximum housing benefit in any week shall be 100 per cent, of his eligible rent". Key word: Eligible.

Your argument falls apart. And next time you don't want it to become "personal", don't use phrases like:
"You clearly have little understand of the law of contract" and
"Whilst I do not expect people to understand the laws they live under..."

The way you have approached this matter suggests you think that you have a robust approach to examination of the law, whereas the things you have posted suggest that you've read a couple of "Which? A Guide to the Law" type books and now think you're Rumpole of the Bailey.

Are you willing to back my £2,500,000.00 weekly rent? You're sure I'd win aren't you?

deary65

I have been on the beer last night so my head is a little fussy to say the least.

This is great, a robust debate on a very important issue.
This is precisely what i mean. The tenant is in a legally binding contract, one which they cannot get out of.

The law tried to get around this by offering what they called a pre-determination agreement i.e tenancy, effective trying to get the rent officer to become a party to the negotiations. And this is the only way I can see you get around the tenants constitutional right to freely enter in to contractual relationships.

The British constitution could not permit the making of laws which effectively discriminated against one section of the community in receipt of housing benefit and those who are not in receipt thereof.
Real1314

When i said to make things simple, i was thinking of other people that might be reading this thread, not you personally I think you picked this up wrongly.