Housing Benefit - Contrived Tenancy?

princessdon

Exactly Nannytone - Tell him it's sorted let him be and leave it at that

Dunroamin

Hamuhu wrote: »

This is turning into a discussion on whether I am a decent SON to my father! Yikes - This was not my intention.

Let me clear up some points.

1. My mother still lives with my father in the bungalow
2. My father WAS on the deeds and HE decided to put the property in my sole name after three years as he had no financial interest per say.
3. I HATE charging my father rent. BUT HE IS ADAMANT. - Lets just say, I return this rent to him through gifts, Xmas, Bdays, etc…
4. My father is an OAP and only receives what he deserves from the state after paying so much in. His pension hasn't done him any good whatsoever.
5. My father WANTS to live in this house as it is suitable for his needs i.e. wet room etc.
6. HE is happy paying rent.
7. He is in a position where he CAN claim HB on any other property should he wish but chooses to live at this house.

So…I really do appreciate all your comments and fully understand the moral dilemmas that may/are/could/should surround this "business transaction".

All I ask is…."How can the council claim this to be contrived?" when everything is dealt with in a business like manner?

As a landlord, I have provided my carbon copy of receipts of cash payments, rental statements, AST, GAS SAFE CERT, EPC, ELECTRICAL SAFETY, I can provide receipts for refurbs, new roofs.

Is this still classed as a contrived tenancy? The law does NOT state that YOU CANNOT let to family.

Please could we stick to the facts? Again - I understand the issues that people have around this - but please rest assured i am looking after my dad!!

If your father was on the deeds and then put it in your name then it will be looked on as deprivation of capital as he has given away (rather than selling) a capital asset.

Your father is not" happy paying rent," he's happy to claim HB and hand it over to you.

Both of these are facts.

Hamuhu

nannytone wrote: »

you hate charging your father rent... but he is adamant ....

nut he wont be paying it will he? the tax payer will.

so why dont you just tell him that the council have ok'd it and just leave it at that?

do you really spend over 5k a year on his birthday and xmas pressies?

oh dear. you are missing the point. YES, he gets every penny back….and more….

nannytone_2

so actually he isnt paying rent then?

so you want the tax payer to fund your generous presents to him?

as dunroaming says .... the fact that he signed an asset over to you ( even though youd been paying the mortgage .... in they eyes of the law, the fact that his name was on the deeds too makes him a part owner. and means that he has deorived himself of an asset

princessdon

Hamuhu wrote: »

oh dear. you are missing the point. YES, he gets every penny back….and more….

Sorry I am confused, so what is the point here

you tell him the HB is paying, he goes on as normal. The fact the tax payer isn't paying but you his son is, isn't relevant is it?

Or are you talking about getting HB and paying it to him?

jonesjimmy

By the letter of the law.

The landlord is fulfilling his end of the bargain.

Evidence suggests that this is a commercial tenancy.

The LA may refuse on the grounds of contrivance but this may be overturned at a tribunal as the LA don't have a valid argument suggesting that this is a contrived tenancy. Merely stating that the bank account doesn't show enough evidence won't stand by the sounds of what this person is saying.

Leaving all emotions out of this particular case, the law states that this is commercial. Thats the bottom line folks!

nannytone_2

i dont see the problem with it being contrived .... he has other properties and is a commercial landlord.

the deprivation of capital is a big problem .....

jonesjimmy

nannytone wrote: »

i dont see the problem with it being contrived .... he has other properties and is a commercial landlord.

the deprivation of capital is a big problem .....

Why is that then? He is claiming that he paid for the mortgage in full…

Im not sure what deprivation in capital would prove. Maybe I'm missing something.

nannytone_2

regardless of who actually paid the mortgage ... the house was in both the fathers and the sons names ...
the father signed his half over to the son without payment ..

the law wuld say that the father intentionally deprived himself of that capital asset

jonesjimmy

nannytone wrote: »

regardless of who actually paid the mortgage ... the house was in both the fathers and the sons names ...
the father signed his half over to the son without payment ..

the law wuld say that the father intentionally deprived himself of that capital asset

ah. I see. if he had taken money for it. He wouldn't get half the benefits he gets now…

Looks like no HB there then!

BTW - has anyone had two bonkers statements from the Tax credits people this year?