Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for that. I will give them till Tuesday. Thanks for your help, very much appreciated. 
    • Ok thanks for that, well spotted and all duly noted. Yes they did eventually submit those docs to me after a second letter advising them I was contacting the ICO to make a formal complaint for failing to comply with an earlier SAR that they brushed off as an "administrative error" or something. When I sent the letter telling them I was in contact with the information commissioner to lodge the complaint, the original PCN etc quickly followed along with their excuse!
    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Help with Housing Benefit Calculation


Acydman
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5285 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My mother in law has lived in the same house on her own for 9 years. She has claimed Housing Benefit all this time as she's now 69 and Pension Credit.

 

She lives alone as a private tenant in a 3 bed semi and has lived there for over 40 years (previous her mother was the tenant and she was the carer).

 

The landlord is extremely reasonable only increasing rent every 5 years. The Local Authority has always paid all of her rent, which was previously £85 per week. THe landlord now wants £100 per week, so shes contacts the benefits office and they have said £85 is the limit.

 

I have been on their own website and looked at their own benefits calculator and found under the LHA rules she is actually entitled to £103.85 per week.

 

I am going to ring the Council tomorrow but I am wanted to see if anyone out there had any advice and if I am barking up the right tree!

 

The LA is Trafford Council and her property falls under Central Greater Manchester.

 

Thanks in advance for any advice or help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct. She is entitled to the one bedroom rate of £103.85 per week; she is also entitled to keep the difference of £3.85. This, however is the rate up until yesterday 31/10/09. The rate may stay the same or go up, it is very unlikely to decrease.

 

Where on earth they have come up with the figure of £85.00, I don't know. I can only guess that (if the rate has gone up) they are basing it on the shared rate which they should not be doing if she lives in a self contained property. The shared rate for that area is currently £65.00 and I sincerley doubt it would increase by £20.00, so I think they have crossed their wires somewhere.

 

Was she a joint tenant with her mum before she died, or was her mum the sole tenant? If she was a joint tenant and the tenancy agreement has only been affected in the manner that mum was removed, then LHA would not affect her and it is HB that should be applied.

 

The only other reason this could be affected would be due to income or savings, but as she is in reciept of Pension Credit, I would doubt this would be the case.

 

She would obviously need to provide verification from the Landlord of the rent increase but other than that I can't see an issue. I think someone has the wrong end of the stick, and it's not you.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for the reply!

 

She is the sole tenant and her mum was the sole tenant previously, the landlord allowed her to stay in the house due to the length of time they have lived there etc.

 

I understand the LHA has been in force sind April 2008 and if it was greater than her rent which was £85 per month she should have been entitled to the first £15?

 

If this is the case then should it not be backdated as its their error?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, she would have been entitled to £100.00 per week in total, if that same rate of £103.85 has applied throughout. She should write a letter to the manager of the benefit section, requesting back dating of the £15.00 per week since she has had her claim, citing maladministration.

  • Haha 1

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unusual for housing benefit or local housing allowance to be paid to the Landlord these days, they only usually do it in one of the below circumstances:

 

 

  • If the tenant is in a vulnerable category such as: Learning difficulties/medical conditions/illiteracy/drug/alcohol/gambling dependencies/people leaving prison/care leavers/fleeing domestic violence
  • If the tenant is unlikely to pay their rent
  • If the tenant is in arrears by 8 weeks or more
  • If the tenant is having deductions made from Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance to pay off rent arrears
  • If we need to issue a large one off payment on a new claim

Yes, being paid directly to the landlord could affect this, as he is not the entitled person; your mother is. Though I cannot see any reason why she could not be paid the difference, as she is still the claimant. I'm not fully au fait yet with LHA, there may be something within the regs which prevents excess payments if it is paid directly to the landlord, but I don't know.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

my main concern is hes put the rent up to £100 per week from 1st December and they wont pay more than £85 leaving her to find £15 a week from somewhere and she cant!

 

I agree it sounds like maladministration and i think for the principle we'll go for back dated underpayments to be made to her but I think she's more worried obviously about where she is going to find £15 per week extra at 69!

Link to post
Share on other sites

She should not have to find it, the rates are clear, and unless she has savings or income which would affect it, she should receive the entitled rate. If she does not, appeal it.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi if your mother in law has been claiming for the last 9 years, without a break in the claim since April 08 when LHA was introduced then its unlikely that her claim is being paid under LHA. in which case she's being paid under the 'old' rules. This would explain why the local authority cannot consider the rent increase. Under the old rules rents are referred to the valuation office (they determine iif the rents are reasonable) once a year and cannot be referred again (for rent increases only) until the anniversary date. When this occurs the LA will refer the new rent, unfortunately this does mean there will be a shortfall until then. There are 2 options if HB is being paid under the old scheme. 1) She can apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment from her LA, with this fund they MAY top up the difference until the anniversary date comes round - but it is is discretionary and there are no guarantees it'll be awarded. She should speak to the LA for further details. 2) she can request her claim be cancelled for one week, then reapply. The new claim will be considered under LHA, then she'll qualify for the LHA rate for one bed rate and any top up if applicable. She will however lose one weeks HB.

 

I hope this helps, but its best to speak with the LA and query which scheme she is being paid under.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well explained, Soleman.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2) she can request her claim be cancelled for one week, then reapply. The new claim will be considered under LHA, then she'll qualify for the LHA rate for one bed rate and any top up if applicable. She will however lose one weeks HB.

 

Agreed, this is definitely worthwhile. As she is over 60 (therefore entitled to backdating for any reason), do you know if she could request backdating for a week as well and still move onto LHA, or would it then be continuously under the old rules?

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A backdate would not be allowed as there has to be a break in the claim in order to be considered under LHA and the minimum is a week. However, if her rent is £100pw and the LHA is £103.85,she'll get £103.85 so eventually she'll get her lost week back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...