help about housing benifit

diane118

hi could some one help, my sister in law owns a 1/4 of her late Dads house, my sister in laws, sister, owns the other 3/4 of the house and lives in the house, she pays her sister (my sister in law) around £30 a week in rent for her 1/4 share of the house.
My sister in laws sister is being made redundant soon and she would like to know if she cant find a job would the housing benefit pay all or some of the £30 rent she has to pay to her sister a week. Hope this makes sense. Thanks.

seven-day-weekend

They won't pay Housing Benefit if the house belongs to a close relative, and especially if the person paying rent is also a co-owner of the property.

real1314

The "close relative" bit is irellevant here, the fact that she is a joint owner is what will stop any claim.

deary65

On the facts of your post there is no joint tenancy but a holding as 'tenants in common'.


Definition tenants in common:
If two or more people have an interest in land as tenants in common, then they are co-owners of that land. They each have an identifiable share of the property, which is capable of being transferred to another party, and is inherited by the owner's estate if he dies. In principle, each of the tenants in common may be able to identify a specific part of the property which they `owns'.


What this means is that there is equitable ownership of unequal shares in the same land, the sister is not paying rent for that has a technical meaning in law. What the sister is making is a contribution towards the future liabilities repairs ect., of the property for the use of the other share which is owned by another.


So in answer to your question yes the demanded contribution would meet the liability requirements in relation to the accommodation which HB is calculated for. However don't expect the HB to understand this. So print of the post and take it into them.


P.S You post is very similar to a question that would be asked in a law exam!

Oldernotwiser

deary65 wrote: »

P.S You post is very similar to a question that would be asked in a law exam!

I think you've just spotted a law student researching on line! She certainly seems to have several friends and relatives with complicated legal situations!

real1314

Zebedee, Ward and Lister disagree with deary65 and agree with me - The OP would be classed as a joint owner for HB purposes, where.... "the definition of "owner" includes those who have the right to sell the freehold only with the consent of other joint owners"

Still, if the scenario is not just a test paper question, let us know how the council respond to deary's approach.

dmg24

Out of interest (and I should know the answer to this, I just can't think right now!), would a shared ownership arrangement (with a HA) be classed as tenants in common or a joint tenancy?

I am guessing tenants in common for the LA shared ownership, but I do not think that the scenario by diane118 would fall under the same definition?

deary65

Having read some of the OP's posts I think you are right. The posts bear remarkable similarities with exam questions testing a persons comprehension of land and trust law.

deary65

dmg24 wrote: »

Out of interest (and I should know the answer to this, I just can't think right now!), would a shared ownership arrangement (with a HA) be classed as tenants in common or a joint tenancy?

I am guessing tenants in common for the LA shared ownership, but I do not think that the scenario by diane118 would fall under the same definition?

Definition joint tenancy

A joint tenancy cannot exist unless the following four unities exist:

AG Securities v Vaughan 1990



(1) Unity of Possession: Each co-owner must be entitled to possession of the whole land with the others. This does not mean that the co-owners must actually occupy the property. If one occupier moves out a joint tenancy will continue unaffected. It is to do with legal entitlements (which parliament can modify, e.g. domestic violence or under the Trust of the Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) and not be de facto use.

(2) Unity of Interest: The interest of each tenant must be identical in extent, nature and duration. One cannot have a larger interest than another. No joint tenancy is possible between a freeholder and a leaseholder. Similarly, no single joint tenant can sell or lease the land because he does not have the whole legal estate.

(3) Unity of Title: All joint tenants must claim title under the same act or document, for example, by the same conveyance or by the same act of adverse possession.

(4) Unity of Time: The joint tenant’s interest must have been acquired at the same time.

In other words a joint tenancy is always de jure and never de facto, whereas tenants in common are always de facto and equitable in nature, in other words it is the shares that are the subject of 'ownership' and not the land.

dmg24

Why not answer the question and not just quote a textbook deary65?!!

I understand what you have written, but I imagine that 99% of MSEers are not legally qualified!

healy

dmg24 wrote: »

Why not answer the question and not just quote a textbook deary65?!!

I understand what you have written, but I imagine that 99% of MSEers are not legally qualified!

Because often he/she does not know what they are talking about as has been shown by a number of posts giving incorrect advice to people.