Family rent question

blueberrygerry

Well, there are some very interesting views on this.

@ Comms69....

Sibling B did not go out of their way to look into tenants life and never has. The information was offered to them by a third party, as some details were splashed onto social media and was visible to others outside family. Sibling B does not use any social media. The lack of distancing and "apparent" good time behaviour led sibling B to feel as though the rent reduction they'd agreed to was being done under slightly false pretenses. It was on that basis that the discussion with their sibling followed. 

@ Annisele....

The rent was paid from housing benefit yes, and the rate it was paid at was not reduced. The tenancy was not a contrived one. The statement of eviction not being on the agenda was simply because of the fact that it was the child of their brother / sister, and as such, requesting eviction would appear extremely harsh without very significant reason. It was always the belief that any issues would be worked out amicably. 

@ pickledonionspaceraider....

The fact that rent was covered by HB was something that sibling B mentioned, stating that this part of the tenants costs were met anyhow. However, they agreed to reduce the rent for a three month period on the basis that their sibling feared for their childs (tenant, and also tenants child) safety during early part of covid outbreak. Sibling B wasn't overly comfortable with it, but agreed anyhow.  Furthermore, the reason sibling B had not kept quiet was because they felt they needed to give a reason why they weren't comfortable in extending the reduction of rent beyond the three months agreed. It was at this point the difference in opinion arose between the siblings of what was right and fair for the tenant. As explained above, sibling B did not use social media. Information relating to how tenant was living was brought up in chance discussion with someone outside family.   Finally, tenant would be free to move out and seek alternative place to live, but, with rent already at rate well below market value for the property they were in, and with all the benefits of staying in what had essentially become their home for six years, that would be a foolish choice maybe.

@ TBagpuss....

Yes, the tenants total income had reduced, but through choice, by deciding to remove themselves from the work environment due to concerns of mixing with others. At the time there was a lot of uncertainty over the ease of disease transmission and potential dangers of Covid. Sibling B requested the rent return to normal in July and stated that if Sibling A wanted to continue helping their child, that they could fund it solely (which sibling A could comfortably afford) Sibling A considered sibling B as a bit mean and thought they could have allowed the rent to remain at the reduced rate for several more months. Sibling B did not want to do that, as they felt the reasoning behind the initial reduction was undermined by the actions of the tenant. It was this difference of opinion that caused the problems.

@ Mojisola....

Tenant would prefer to remain at the property as you state, for fairly obvious reasons.

Marvel1

I agree with sibling B, they stepped away from job to self isolate and then host parties!

No rent increase in 5 years also means time for an increase, it's a business not charity.

Annisele

blueberrygerry said:

@ Annisele....

The rent was paid from housing benefit yes, and the rate it was paid at was not reduced. The tenancy was not a contrived one. The statement of eviction not being on the agenda was simply because of the fact that it was the child of their brother / sister, and as such, requesting eviction would appear extremely harsh without very significant reason. It was always the belief that any issues would be worked out amicably. 

If there's ever an investigation into this situation, I'll be shocked if you manage to persuade anybody that this was ever anything other than a contrived tenancy. No rent increases for five years, protection from eviction because of personal relationships - and, the killer in my view, one landlord is apparently entertaining the idea of paying part of the tenant's rent to the other landlord! Sibling A is certainly not treating the tenant on an arm's length commercial basis. (That's not quite the test for "contrived tenancy", but this certainly smells like one.)

All of that means that if Sibling B gets extremely fed up and decides to drop a nuke into their relationship with Sibling A and tenant, there's a nuke easily available and to hand. Not necessarily in Sibling B's interest to use that nuke, but it's there.

Can Sibling A afford to buy Sibling B out? That might be the neatest way to solve this.

blueberrygerry

Annisele said:

blueberrygerry said:

@ Annisele....

The rent was paid from housing benefit yes, and the rate it was paid at was not reduced. The tenancy was not a contrived one. The statement of eviction not being on the agenda was simply because of the fact that it was the child of their brother / sister, and as such, requesting eviction would appear extremely harsh without very significant reason. It was always the belief that any issues would be worked out amicably. 

If there's ever an investigation into this situation, I'll be shocked if you manage to persuade anybody that this was ever anything other than a contrived tenancy. No rent increases for five years, protection from eviction because of personal relationships - and, the killer in my view, one landlord is apparently entertaining the idea of paying part of the tenant's rent to the other landlord! Sibling A is certainly not treating the tenant on an arm's length commercial basis. (That's not quite the test for "contrived tenancy", but this certainly smells like one.)

All of that means that if Sibling B gets extremely fed up and decides to drop a nuke into their relationship with Sibling A and tenant, there's a nuke easily available and to hand. Not necessarily in Sibling B's interest to use that nuke, but it's there.

Can Sibling A afford to buy Sibling B out? That might be the neatest way to solve this.

Thanks for the reply Annisele, it's good to hear others views on this.

To clarify...

The rate of rent was fairly close to what would be fairly standard on such a property within the area at that time (six years ago), so there was no initial massive concession. The rent was covered by HB, as it has always been. The tenancy was not contrived, and it was simply circumtances at that time that worked out as fortunate for the tenant, who had recently separated from a long term partner.

There was no protection from eviction if problems arose that warranted it. The fact that eviction was not discussed by the siblings was because it wasn't necessary. Simple.

One landlord was not paying a part of the rent for the other landlord. The agreed reduction was split, so both siblings accepted a reduction in what was paid monthly.  Sibling B was not entirely comfortable with it, but agreed in order to alleviate the apparent financial burden on tenant for a limited period, and, for a very specific reason. It wasn't an ideal setup at all, but it's how it was.  Having said that, I see how it might look like one landlord was paying another once sibling B made clear they would not continue with the reduction past the initial three months agreed. In that sense, I guess sibling A was going to have to tolerate any losses alone.

Sibling A not treating the tenant at arms length on a commercial basis is kind of understandable with the tenant being their child surely, although I see how that can be argued otherwise.

Sibling B seemingly did not want to cause any disruption to the relationship, but on choosing not to continue with concession on rent, was forced to give reason why. This reason was as stated already, and it was the difference of opinion on whether this was a justifiable reason to remove the (further) concession on rent that the problem has arisen.

Yes, sibling A can afford to buy out Sibling B.    

Caz3121

blueberrygerry said:

 The rent was covered by HB, as it has always been.

If the housing benefit is still being paid for the full amount (and not the reduced rate) it would probably simpler for the rent to be paid in full with this payment (as it is intended) and Sibling A can choose to gift their child some money each month from their share

blueberrygerry

Thank you for your comment Caz3121.

pickledonionspaceraider

@ pickledonionspaceraider....

The fact that rent was covered by HB was something that sibling B mentioned, stating that this part of the tenants costs were met anyhow. However, they agreed to reduce the rent for a three month period on the basis that their sibling feared for their childs (tenant, and also tenants child) safety during early part of covid outbreak. Sibling B wasn't overly comfortable with it, but agreed anyhow.  Furthermore, the reason sibling B had not kept quiet was because they felt they needed to give a reason why they weren't comfortable in extending the reduction of rent beyond the three months agreed. It was at this point the difference in opinion arose between the siblings of what was right and fair for the tenant. As explained above, sibling B did not use social media. Information relating to how tenant was living was brought up in chance discussion with someone outside family.   Finally, tenant would be free to move out and seek alternative place to live, but, with rent already at rate well below market value for the property they were in, and with all the benefits of staying in what had essentially become their home for six years, that would be a foolish choice maybe.

Sorry but this appears to be benefit fraud. The tenant is claiming full cost of their rent and only having to pay half....and condoned by the landlords 
This is likely to be discovered.
1) - When Landlords are asked to provide a rent statement for housing benefit. They will be obliged to provide true and accurate statements showing the reduction.
2) - When tenant has to provide bank details for housing benefit. Unless the rent is a cash only transaction, these reduced payments will be visible 

I think there is a very real chance that all three of them could end up in hot water....and the landlords should never have agreed to doing this, knowing they were willing participants in benefit fraud 

I realise Landlords were trying to help, but this was very naive to knowingly agree to doing this...and put themselves at risk.

They have much bigger issues at hand than post 1 would indicate

blueberrygerry

pickledonionspaceraider said:

@ pickledonionspaceraider....

The fact that rent was covered by HB was something that sibling B mentioned, stating that this part of the tenants costs were met anyhow. However, they agreed to reduce the rent for a three month period on the basis that their sibling feared for their childs (tenant, and also tenants child) safety during early part of covid outbreak. Sibling B wasn't overly comfortable with it, but agreed anyhow.  Furthermore, the reason sibling B had not kept quiet was because they felt they needed to give a reason why they weren't comfortable in extending the reduction of rent beyond the three months agreed. It was at this point the difference in opinion arose between the siblings of what was right and fair for the tenant. As explained above, sibling B did not use social media. Information relating to how tenant was living was brought up in chance discussion with someone outside family.   Finally, tenant would be free to move out and seek alternative place to live, but, with rent already at rate well below market value for the property they were in, and with all the benefits of staying in what had essentially become their home for six years, that would be a foolish choice maybe.

Sorry but this appears to be benefit fraud. The tenant is claiming full cost of their rent and only having to pay half....and condoned by the landlords 
This is likely to be discovered.
1) - When Landlords are asked to provide a rent statement for housing benefit. They will be obliged to provide true and accurate statements showing the reduction.
2) - When tenant has to provide bank details for housing benefit. Unless the rent is a cash only transaction, these reduced payments will be visible 

I think there is a very real chance that all three of them could end up in hot water....and the landlords should never have agreed to doing this, knowing they were willing participants in benefit fraud 

I realise Landlords were trying to help, but this was very naive to knowingly agree to doing this...and put themselves at risk.

They have much bigger issues at hand than post 

Yes, I suppose that is essentially correct for the three month period that a reduction was agreed. It was not an ideal situation at all and was agreed to reluctantly by sibling B, so "condoned" is arguably not the right word. However, it did have potentially serious consequences, and on that basis, it wasn't smart.

There is far more to this story than has been posted here, much of which would no doubt encourage some interesting discussion. The outcome of it all is that sibling B has requested to be bought out, so they can remove themselves from dealing with it. Overall, this is perhaps the best course of action.

Spendless

Are you saying that pre-covid the rent was paid 100% by HB or the tenant added to it?
Not entirely sure how it works if the tenant adds to it, but I should imagine there's some sort of calculation involved from the benefit office. If HB pays 100%, the rent has been reduced and the benefits office not informed of it, and the tenant has kept the surplus then that's definately benefit fraud. If there's a contribution and that should have been adjusted and hasn't been  there's possibly fraud there too.

If the rent hasn't gone up in the last few years and the reason for this is because the tenant is a relative then that too might constitute a contrived tenancy, if a non related tenant would have been treated differently during the timescale and even if the rent initially was on a par with other properties locally.

I'd be far more concerned about these angles than if someone should be offended. 

Annisele

My suggestion that Sibling A should buy out Sibling B was a suggestion in respect of the relationship issues. And at that point I hadn't appreciated what OP had said about the rent - I now think that (at least the period of the rent reduction) looks less "this might be a contrived tenancy" and more "out and out benefit fraud". I don't know whether a change of landlord would be likely to bring the whole arrangement to the authorities attention.

Possibly all three parties should take themselves off to separate solicitors and try to work out how to fix this without further damange. (And as a taxpayer, I feel like the fix should probably include the repayment of any 'accidental' overpayments of housing benefits - but don't open that can of worms without taking proper advice!)