Benefit fraud or not?
Discussion
Theoretical question 
Someone rents a private property to a tenant for personal use only under an AST.
Said tenant then has a lodger/subtenant who claims housing benefit that is paid direct to the original tenant. The original tenant does not have the landlords permission to "assign, sublet, charge or part with or share possession of the Property" (or words to that effect).
Is this benefit fraud?
Someone rents a private property to a tenant for personal use only under an AST.
Said tenant then has a lodger/subtenant who claims housing benefit that is paid direct to the original tenant. The original tenant does not have the landlords permission to "assign, sublet, charge or part with or share possession of the Property" (or words to that effect).
Is this benefit fraud?
Its not fraud however the benefits should not be paid as the original tennant must have permission from the owner
if the original tennant has permission then it should be paid
long time lurker, never thought my first post would be about housing benefit, the wifes in the trade tho so i asked her
if the original tennant has permission then it should be paid
long time lurker, never thought my first post would be about housing benefit, the wifes in the trade tho so i asked her
The circumstances the OP describes are undoubtedly potentially a matter of concern to the Housing benefit section in the LA concerned'
If an appropriate report is made to the LA housing Benefit section then there will be an investigation.
The tenant will be called in and the facts examined.
Whether this is a matter for claw back of benefit or a criminal matter will depend on the exact nature of the dishonesty involved.
The LA will not normally pay out HB to family members.
But each case will be reviewed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case.
The question of HB being paid to a former foster child on a property rented out by the former carers would probably not be affected by the former relationship of foster child and foster parent.
There would be no blood relation involved, so I doubt if this could be regarded as materially affecting the legality of the payment of HB.
Any dishonesty or failure to openly declare relationships and legal ties between landlords and tenants are very strictly vetted by LA housing departments. Otherwise a parent could, for example, let out several houses to their children, and receive benefit from the LA.
This would be clearly illegal and could only be achieved by dishonest misrepresentation.
Hence the interest of LA Housing departments.
If an appropriate report is made to the LA housing Benefit section then there will be an investigation.
The tenant will be called in and the facts examined.
Whether this is a matter for claw back of benefit or a criminal matter will depend on the exact nature of the dishonesty involved.
The LA will not normally pay out HB to family members.
But each case will be reviewed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case.
The question of HB being paid to a former foster child on a property rented out by the former carers would probably not be affected by the former relationship of foster child and foster parent.
There would be no blood relation involved, so I doubt if this could be regarded as materially affecting the legality of the payment of HB.
Any dishonesty or failure to openly declare relationships and legal ties between landlords and tenants are very strictly vetted by LA housing departments. Otherwise a parent could, for example, let out several houses to their children, and receive benefit from the LA.
This would be clearly illegal and could only be achieved by dishonest misrepresentation.
Hence the interest of LA Housing departments.
There is fraud involed where there is either a false representation (put simply a lie; this is an act of commission) or a failure to disclose a material fact (not telling someone something they could reasonably be expected to be informed of; an act of omission) and there is an intent to gain or for another to lose.
Wether or not there has been a loss is not always technically important, the intent is enough. People have been prosecuted for 'attempt only' but this is dependant on the organisation's policy at the time (these change) and the amount of resource they have available etc
Clealy, the higher the loss, the longer the period (means more false declarations/false payments) the more likely that formal action may follow.
Wether or not there has been a loss is not always technically important, the intent is enough. People have been prosecuted for 'attempt only' but this is dependant on the organisation's policy at the time (these change) and the amount of resource they have available etc
Clealy, the higher the loss, the longer the period (means more false declarations/false payments) the more likely that formal action may follow.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff