Please please help me

Craig1981

you may not be liable for rent, however based on what you have said, you have use and occupation charges that you ARE liable for, and therefore on these grounds, should be able to claim HB:

.—(1) Subject to regulation 9 (circumstances in which a person is to be treated as not liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling), the following persons shall be treated as if they were liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling—

(a)the person who is liable to make those payments;
(b)a person who is a partner of the person to whom sub-paragraph (a) applies;
(c)a person who has to make the payments if he is to continue to live in the home because the person liable to make them is not doing so and either—
(i)he was formerly a partner of the person who is so liable; or
(ii)he is some other person whom it is reasonable to treat as liable to make the payments;
(d)a person whose liability to make such payments is waived by his landlord as reasonable compensation in return for works actually carried out by the tenant in carrying out reasonable repairs or redecoration which the landlord would otherwise have carried out or be required to carry out but this sub-paragraph shall apply only for a maximum of 8 benefit weeks in respect of any one waiver of liability;
(e)a person who is a partner of a student to whom regulation 56(1) (circumstances in which certain students are treated as not liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling) applies.
(2) A person shall be treated as liable to make a payment in respect of a dwelling for the whole of the period in, or in respect of, which the payment is to be made notwithstanding that the liability is discharged in whole or in part either before or during that period and, where the amount which a person is liable to pay in respect of a period is varied either during or after that period, he shall, subject to regulations 79 to 81 (dates of relevant changes of circumstances, weekly amounts and housing benefit for rent free periods), be treated as liable to pay the amount as so varied during the whole of that period.

marliepanda

Craig1981 wrote: »

you may not be liable for rent, however based on what you have said, you have use and occupation charges that you ARE liable for, and therefore on these grounds, should be able to claim HB:

.—(1) Subject to regulation 9 (circumstances in which a person is to be treated as not liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling), the following persons shall be treated as if they were liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling—

(a)the person who is liable to make those payments;
(b)a person who is a partner of the person to whom sub-paragraph (a) applies;
(c)a person who has to make the payments if he is to continue to live in the home because the person liable to make them is not doing so and either—
(i)he was formerly a partner of the person who is so liable; or
(ii)he is some other person whom it is reasonable to treat as liable to make the payments;
(d)a person whose liability to make such payments is waived by his landlord as reasonable compensation in return for works actually carried out by the tenant in carrying out reasonable repairs or redecoration which the landlord would otherwise have carried out or be required to carry out but this sub-paragraph shall apply only for a maximum of 8 benefit weeks in respect of any one waiver of liability;
(e)a person who is a partner of a student to whom regulation 56(1) (circumstances in which certain students are treated as not liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling) applies.
(2) A person shall be treated as liable to make a payment in respect of a dwelling for the whole of the period in, or in respect of, which the payment is to be made notwithstanding that the liability is discharged in whole or in part either before or during that period and, where the amount which a person is liable to pay in respect of a period is varied either during or after that period, he shall, subject to regulations 79 to 81 (dates of relevant changes of circumstances, weekly amounts and housing benefit for rent free periods), be treated as liable to pay the amount as so varied during the whole of that period.

And which ground exactly do you think the OPs situation comes under...

Craig1981

a
c(ii)


Yes, best option is to have OP down as the tenant, however as use and occupation charges do fall under HB remit, the claim can be appealed
The landlord is not a close relative, so it doesn't matter who is on the tenancy. OP (from what I understand) is listed as permitted occupier of the property.


Has the OP given all information to Benefit department to assess the claim correctly? documentation backing up that her father is NOT the tenant? I would think if the answer came back for the claim as you are not the tenant, then I assume not


OP - appeal the decision, but provide information from landlord/letting agent advising why they went down this route. C/tax bill from your father showing his residence will also help.

Ames

Craig1981 wrote: »

a
c(ii)


Yes, best option is to have OP down as the tenant, however as use and occupation charges do fall under HB remit, the claim can be appealed
The landlord is not a close relative, so it doesn't matter who is on the tenancy. OP (from what I understand) is listed as permitted occupier of the property.


Has the OP given all information to Benefit department to assess the claim correctly? documentation backing up that her father is NOT the tenant? I would think if the answer came back for the claim as you are not the tenant, then I assume not


OP - appeal the decision, but provide information from landlord/letting agent advising why they went down this route. C/tax bill from your father showing his residence will also help.

The father has paid six month's rent up front. So there's no liability to the commercial landlord, only (possibly, but probably not legally) to the father who clearly is a close relative.

Craig1981

Ames wrote: »

The father has paid six month's rent up front. So there's no liability to the commercial landlord, only (possibly, but probably not legally) to the father who clearly is a close relative.

agreed, have said this in another post by OP of the same question.