housing benefit(opinion)

deary65

I have posted a new thread on housing benefit, because the previous thread made for confusing reading. Hopefully this thread will be less so.

I have reduced the wisdom of the courts to writing, in a form of words that hopefully people reading might understand, why the courts would consider the rent officer’s decisions unlawful unconstitutional and unenforceable.

This of course, is an opinion; people reading should always seek a second opinion, from a professional lawyer who should be able to understand the legal meaning of the words employed

Introduction.
As a people, we shelter under the protection of a welfare state which was struggled and fought for by our fathers and forefathers’, some of whom sacrificed their lives so that, our children and our children’s children could be secure in the enjoyment of their endeavors. There is little need for anyone to suffer hardship unnecessarily in a welfare state.

Formation of the constitution:.
The king in is grace made grants of land to his tenants in chief in return for allegiance they made further grants of interests in land to their tenants in return for services these tenants give permission to their servants to occupy land in return for their labour known as the master servant relationship. The important thing to understand is these were agreements in relation to land and securing the crowns subjects in the enjoyment of the wealth and benefits that issue there from the land. But, most importantly of all, was the freedom to do so.
Conclusion: Agreements in relation to land form part of the constitution.


Confirmation by the courts

Here is an abstract form one of most famous judgments ever to be uttered in an English court of law.
.
This case concerned the forcible detention and work of a man.

No man in this kingdom shall be subjected to the will of another without their express consent and agreement. For, any man who walks this land we call England and breaths the air, breaths that air as a free man. Moreover, if this court were to decide otherwise, it would strike a mortal blow to the very sole of our nationhood and deprive our constitution of its vitality, rendering us all to become, nothing more than slaves subjected to the will of the state. I therefore have no hesitation in ordering this man’s release to freely walk among us forthwith

Conclusion freedom of contract is held by the courts to be almost sacrosanct.


Contract
A contract has no live of its own, it is born of agreement between the parties thereto and given vitality by their desires to a strike a bargain, fertilized by negotiating, once value has been agreed and the consideration moves from the promise that bargain becomes a contract imbued with the promises of the parties thereto and cloaked with the sanctity of the law. And the law will secure them in the enjoyment of it, and will not tolerate any interference with it, save only by way of lawful authority.
Housing Benefit.
Therefore, I have concluded that nothing less than an act of parliament per se can be employed to disturb the sanctity of a valid contract in relation to land. And any interference by the rent officer would be considered unconstitutional and have no lawful affect.
As with all legal matters the court will have the last say.

kindest regards

chirpy007

Yep much clearer

specsappeal

Absolutely - clear as mud lol

real1314

Duh! How many times.

Which bit of that waffle allows the sacrosanct nature of the contract to impose itself on another, whether that other is another man, private enterprise or governmental body (that bit about freedom might be useful here)?

Are you prepared to back up my suggestion that I take on a £2,500,000.00 weekly rent to be claimed on HB?

You've had the answers but you seem to be fascinated by your own opinion to the exclusion of any other fact. That's not debate. You just want someone to say "oh my you're right, how clever you are" sadly that's not going to happen.

Get something worthwhile to do instead.

btw the Housing Act went though Parliament in 1988(ish).

dmg24

Are you on something?

Smashing

I misread your name as 'dreary.'

Just sayin'.

rosysparkle

Nothing in a rent officer decision alters an AST. The rent officer decision is about how much public money may be expended in housing benefit for a particular property, and any shortfall is the tenant's responsibility. Nowhere in the legislation is any guarantee that HB will pay 100% of the rent.

Just because you believe that HB should pay 100% of rent doesn't mean that they do. The law doesn't work like that.

HB may, depending on the claimant's circumstances, pay 100% of the eligible rent, but the eligible rent is not the same thing (and is never intended to be the same thing) as the contractual rent.

The rent officer decision does not alter the contract.

ManAtHome

deary65 wrote:

No man in this kingdom shall be subjected to the will of another without their express consent and agreement.

Does this mean I can stop paying tax to fund Real's rent (which is a good 20% over the odds for Cleethorpes by the way).

bear23

some people deserve there full rent paid ... my disabled brother is being cared for primarilly by his girlfriend, he is in reciept of higher rate care and mobility dla. His girl friend is 23 and is doing a fantastic job looking after him especially as she has missed out on things such as university to be able to do so much for him.
For this full time job she is entitled to carers premium and income support top up along with housing benifit (she lives in her own rented flat), however as she is below 25 years old income support pay a lesser amount and so do housing benifit, I could understand this if she was unemployed as a reduced benifits package would encourage employment (maybe) but she is forsaking her youth for a noble and full time job that she is being penalised financilly for, a fair rent regardless of age would be a proper thankyou for a worthwhile job

deary65

When I first read the previous thead on hb, two thing disturbed my thinking .Arbitrary decisions seemed to be, being made affecting the security of peoples homes also, people were discussing rules and regulation without an understanding of laws behind them.

It was not until I read an instrument known as a pre-determination tenancy I then realized that the department had taken legal advice on the matter since this is the only way around the law.

Whilst it is true to say that parliament is the supreme law maker and they are freely elected by the people of this nation, and could if they so wished, pass a law to abolish it self however, it could never pass a law to abolish the monarchy. For vested in the vote of the people conveying their will to parliament, nowhere in that conveyance is an implied authority the deprive them of their freedom to freely enter in contractual relations. For that grant comes from a higher authority, together with all our needs provided for, and subjected only to our capacity to manage them wisely for the benefit of us all.

What I would like is a letter from the secretary of state via his lawfully appointed agent the rent officer confirming that he has the legal authority vested in him to disturb a holy union of two or more persons and place a value on that union and the legal authority to rebind in a new union. In other words hold both parties to the decision.
regards

real1314

You're not listening and you're not debating. When did the "union" become holy? :A
Are you sugesting that a tenant and landlord are bound before god?

It's obvious you know very little of what you're trying to debate. You've been given the info that refutes your " argument" and you're now just wasting people's time.:doh:

Why don't you write to the S of S and let us all know when you get your reply. In the meantime, stop posting your un-informed opinion.

Bye.:wave: