Housing Benefit

rosysparkle

That does not suggest that HB will pay full rent for a property, just that HB will determine how much rent they feel it is reasonable for HB to contribute.

A few paragraphs later on in the same document:

Housing Benefit will normally only meet in full, rents which are around the general level for properties in the area where you have chosen to live. If the rent for your home is above this level you are unlikely to get all your rent from Housing Benefit.

And a bit further on:

The maximum rent i]that will be paid by HB[/i figure can be further reduced by the housing Benefit Office if the figure seems to them to be unreasonably high for your particular accomodation needs.

I don't know what there is to debate, really. The legislation, as well as documents such as the application for a PTD, makes it clear that HB may not pay the full rent of a property.

A tenant who is reliant on HB to pay the rent, and where the rent isn't covered in full, has two choices. Pay the shortfall, or move somewhere cheaper. Strictly speaking they have a further choice, which is to get off benefits, but that may not be practicable for all claimants, and I don't mean to suggest that people should not claim if their circumstances dictate that they need to.

deary65

The Housing Benefit office will ask the Rent Service to value the property and to decide how much rent it would be reasonable to pay for it. You will normally get your decision within seven days. If they have made a valuation on that property on the same tenancy terms within the last 12 months that valuation will stand and the Housing Benefit office will send you a copy of this decision. Page 2 of this leaflet explains the Rent Service's decision and how it will affect your Housing Benefit.



My argument is, this is rent control by the back door restricting the rent of a section of the community and is unconstitutional which can only be achieved by an act of parliament per se ie a dually constituted act of parliament known as a rent act, which would apply all.

On the matters of the pre-tenancy determination I would be quit happy to argue that this makes the rent officer a party to the contract, if such a determination were accepted.

I'm of for the time being to have myself a good drink.
Have a good christmas everybody.
kindest regards to all.

rosysparkle

It's not restricting the rent, it's restricting the amount the taxpayer will be contributing towards the rent. The rent itself is not affected by this. It is not rent control. It is control of public monies.

By dually I imagine you mean duly. Per se means "by itself". The phrase is unnecessary in your sentence.

The HB regulations do not set out to achieve, nor do they achieve, rent control.

A PTD does not and can not make the rent officer a party to the contract.

Have a very merry Christmas, and I wish you a better understanding of legislation and regulations in 2007.

Chrysalis

The problem with PTD is it cant be done without the landlords knowledge so if the tenant doesnt want the landlord to know they are a claimant then a PTD is useless.

Somerset

A side issue.

There is already a proportion of private landlords who won't accept tenants on benefits. If HB is being reduced 'by the back door' because they think rents are too high, this will further disencourage landlords from accepting tenants on benefits. The 'private' sector may be small in terms of the overall picture, but to many it's their only option. Council and HA is like gold dust now. The real losers will be those on benefits, struggling to find a landlord prepared to accept tenants on benefits.