Tenants/rent guarantor

PersianCatLady

What is the reason behind the daughter renting the house and the parents being named on the AST?


Is it because she is entitled to HB and the parents are not??


If yes then I sincerely hope your daughter is not expecting to rent a house and have it paid for by HB and then her parents could move in for free.


I am really hoping that the only reason for the confusion here is that you haven't explained the situation very clearly and not the alternative explanation of benefit fraud.

PersianCatLady

sammyjammy wrote: »

If property owned by someone else then daughter would only be liable for half (third?) of the rent and therefore only entitled to HB on that.

HB / LHA doesn't work like that, it is far more complicated.

fairy_lights

If the (presumably financially stable) parents are going to be living there too and are also named on the tenancy then why would the daughter need a guarantor?

mandm65

PersianCatLady wrote: »

I sincerely hope your daughter is not expecting to rent a house and have it paid for by HB and then her parents could move in for free.

How did you work that out?

PersianCatLady wrote: »

I am really hoping that the only reason for the confusion here is that you haven't explained the situation very clearly and not the alternative explanation of benefit fraud.

:shocked:

mandm65

I believe we already reached a conclusion so no further input required.
Thanks all for your input.
cheers

PersianCatLady

mandm65 wrote: »

How did you work that out?


:shocked:

Sorry I meant the daughter.


With regards to benefit fraud I think that there is a lot of confusion about this whole situation because your OP wasn't very clear.


Could you try and explain the reasoning behind the situation??


Why does the daughter's parents want to move in?


If they are all going to live together why aren't the parents the tenants and the daughter is a permitted occupier?


If the parents are financially stable then they should be paying the rent and the daughter is not entitled to any HB / LHA as you can't claim when live with family.


I volunteer at an advice centre and I am sorry to say that this whole situation seems like it could be a way of getting HB when it is not really due.


Please prove me wrong and tell me the real reason for this peculiar set-up.

G_M

There are a number of interlinked but separate issues

* The tenancy: who are the named tenants and will the LL accept her/them?

* guarantor: obviously only relevant if the parents do NOT move in

* HB - implications of eligibility if renting with others/family

* the parents property - if they move in with daughter what happens to this? Left empty? Implications on insurance, council's 'empty homes' policy, council tax etc
Or let out? whole new can of worms.

PersianCatLady

G_M wrote: »

There are a number of interlinked but separate issues

There is a lot more to this situation than the OP was willing to say and now supposedly "they have reached a conclusion".


It all sounds very dodgy to me.

mandm65

PersianCatLady wrote: »

Sorry I meant the daughter.

Apology accepted

PersianCatLady wrote: »

With regards to benefit fraud I think that there is a lot of confusion about this whole situation because your OP wasn't very clear.

Unsure of fraud elements!

PersianCatLady wrote: »

Could you try and explain the reasoning behind the situation??

Daughter (on HB) looking to rent and parents were thiking that being guarantor as well as tenants would make them credible tenants.

PersianCatLady wrote: »

Why does the daughter's parents want to move in?

I guess, daughter being single parent they probably want to support her/ close to grand children!

PersianCatLady wrote: »

If they are all going to live together why aren't the parents the tenants and the daughter is a permitted occupier?

Don't know, sorry.

PersianCatLady wrote: »

If the parents are financially stable then they should be paying the rent and the daughter is not entitled to any HB / LHA as you can't claim when live with family.

I am not the authority or have experienced to decide/form an opinion who is/is NOT entitled to HB, I leave this judgment to someone who is better qualified.

PersianCatLady wrote: »

I volunteer at an advice centre and I am sorry to say that this whole situation seems like it could be a way of getting HB when it is not really due.

Like i said earlier [FONT=&quot]I am not the authority to decide.[/FONT]

PersianCatLady wrote: »

Please prove me wrong and tell me the real reason for this peculiar set-up.

I don’t come here to prove people wrong, I joined the forum to seek help or contribute where I can. I was asked to give an opinion and I thought I gave the right opinion. I posted the question here to ensure I did not misinform them and what I said was correct. Judging by some of the responses here it was clear that my original conclusion was correct that tenants cannot wear two hats.

PersianCatLady

Sorry if I seemed to jump down your throat but the whole situation is very odd.


If the daughter wants to live with her parents then that is great but then she is probably not able to claim HB if her parents are financially stable.


To me it seems as if the daughter is expecting to receive HB to pay for a house for her family when the parents aren't entitled themselves.


That said I don't know the precise details of the situation you are dealing with and I am sorry for having been presumptuous.