Tag Archives: Landlord Rights

06Sep 2012

Current property news; Squatting finally made illegal.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It is possibly one of the most depressing and sickening things that can happen to a property owner, to find that squatters have broken in to your property and that the law does not support this effective breaking and entering in any way and the responsibility to deal with the intrusion is thrown squarely on the shoulders of the rightful owner. These words, whilst repeated as I remember them, were used during a presentation to the Lettings Industry during a speech on the use of empty housing some ten years ago.

At last!

Now, after so many years the Government has reacted and made it an illegal offense to squat in premises without a legal right or reason to be present. What should have happened then is the unfortunate property owners who were suffering at present be given their voice and an outcry of at last should have been heard. What was heard was a cry of ‘unfair’ as housing groups and charities warned of rising homelessness.

Responsibility.

Now I must make myself clear here, I am not uncaring of the position people are in that sees them squat in the first place or the problems they now face if removed from property. My problem is that the house owner should have always been in the position of being able to rely upon the assistance of the law and it is unfair to somehow shift the responsibility back on the shoulders of the owners. This is clearly a failing of the social system in providing housing for all in the first place. This is said with full knowledge that there are some who will always remain outside of the system and be non-conformist!

Ignoring the Law.

I have always found it somewhat ironic that the Houses of Multiple Occupation laws were introduced to tackle safety in high rise City Centre properties and for ignoring them Landlords could be banned from owning property. Squatters, by the very nature of what they do, cause far more danger and would never consider such legislation in how they live, yet they are protected because their activity has always fallen under civil offense legislation and not an illegal act. To make it so at last corrects this ridiculous state of affairs.

Financial requirement.

What is so often forgotten is the financial requirement that the owner needs to fulfil and the difficulties they find themselves left in when a property is a target for squatters. In my small way, I feel I need to make a stand for the owners, and no matter how many stories there are of squatters who have maintained a property well, there are just as many of properties left in an appalling condition.

Enforcement.

Now we must hope that this blight (although mainly a City centre problem) is dealt with in short order. It is a fairly simple statement for me to make, because no matter what your feelings, we should live by the letter of the law and I believe ownership rights should be amongst those at the top of the list of laws to abide by. My hope is that the charities and groups working with those made homeless by this change of law do not fund any legal challenge through the courts. Owners, who are not all £multimillion Companies who can afford losses, deserve the law to be enforced in full.

08Aug 2012

Property Landlord advice: Treating harassment seriously.

⋅ 2 Comments

By Steve Roulstone

One of the most difficult jobs that we have to do as Letting Agents is to convince a Landlord that no matter how badly treated he may feel by the Tenant neither we nor he can just turn up at the property and demand recompense!  Harassment and all the actions that surround it are a serious matter and a case has recently come to my attention which highlights exactly why we give the warnings that we do.

Extreme case.

The case I am talking about surrounds a Landlords efforts to remove a Tenant because they wanted to sell the property concerned and went about it in a way that was far from normal by any standards which does mean that the efforts the Landlord went to are extreme, but the penalties  are also high and what should be considered is that the Landlord was wrong in every way, before we even get to the legal steps to avoid action, but that does not change that he was found guilty in virtually every step he took.

Notice served.

Even though the notice was served and indeed not questioned by the courts, the very fact that the Landlord applied pressure on the day the notice came to its due date is significant. The courts only have one view and that is that the law must be seen to take its view. Even if the Tenant does not leave on the due date, the courts are the only vehicle through which a Tenant can be evicted.

Landlords rights.

The law sees itself protecting both the rights of the Landlord and the Tenant, but just because a Tenant does not leave does not mean that anybody can take matters in too their own hands. This is why even calling without notice can be considered as harassment! There is one simple rule here, do nothing without notice, even a visit to discuss matters should be done by appointment.  Let the courts do their work, under no circumstances should a Landlord take any form of direct action themselves.

Extreme scenario.

Yes the detail of this case is extreme, but the consequences do show just how this can get out of hand. The damages which could amount to £30000 (along with not unsubstantial costs) are the proof of just how costly getting this wrong could be.

Private Landlord.

It is also worthy of note that the Agent concerned, having served notice, was contacted by the Tenants solicitors, but from that moment on, the action was all against the Landlord and the Agent, obviously unable to fulfil its role, arrears (correctly) to have disassociated themselves. They have no choice when matters are taken out of their hands. But if it was an Agent that was being blamed for this action no doubt ‘rogue agents’ would have appeared in the report! But as it was a Landlord taking his own actions, it would be nice to know that he was banned from being a Landlord again!

Registration.

If all Landlords were registered as was recommended in the Rugg review of 2008 then there would be no doubt and action would have been taken. But that is not the case and as far as I am aware, without a specific case resulting in a Court ban, Landlords cannot be stopped renting property again! Who knows, that may still happen, but what is sure is that there is no legislation in place at present to rely upon.

17Apr 2012

Current Property News: Landlord wins Judgement against bad Tenant.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Just occasionally matters come to the point where faith in the system is not only renewed but also rewarded! The news we received this week is one of those cases.  We have a Landlord who has had great faith in dealing with the situation that was presented to them in a professional and thorough manner through the courts. Thankfully to a good conclusion as this was after we advised the Landlord that it was a case worthy of legal judgement,  ensuring that the Tenant was not allowed to get away with the state that they left the Landlords property in at the end of the Tenancy.

Ignored instruction.

We soon realised at the start of the Tenancy whilst doing our property visits that the house was not being cared for in the proper manner. General untidiness was soon becoming harmful to both the inside and outside of the house. We did everything we could to get the Tenant to carry out the work required, but in the end under instruction from the Landlord, following our advice, notice was given to leave. Any effort to keep the property in order at that stage ceased.

Check out.

When we then came to check the Tenants out of the property, the work needed to return the property to good order was vast! We photographed, noted, gained quotes and spoke to the Tenant about getting the work carried out. They disagreed, refused and eventually ignored all communications until the Landlord had no choice but to instruct the work in order for the home to be available for the rental market again.

Options.

 At this point we spoke again at length and in the end after looking at the cost of the dilapidations advised the Landlord to take the matter to court. This is of course a big decision to make, not only for the inevitable risk that such a decision brings with it, but also because of the actual task itself which can of course be daunting. The Landlords stood by their conviction and filed papers.

Courts take time.

Never was a statement more true. The original hearing was cancelled twice initially after sitting around all day to be told the court did not have enough time to hear the case, then at the Tenants request until a third date was finally set for this month and only now has the Landlord finally received a judgement. This made all the more understandable when you realise that the Tenant actually vacated in June 2010!!

Award.

But in the end it was worth it! The courts awarded the Landlord the whole of the claim for damages, the deposit in full and two months loss of rent because of the length of time it took to get the property fit for the market again. This is made all the better with the knowledge that the Tenant who replaced the person claimed against still enjoy living there and are treating the property as it should be treated by any good Tenant.

Summary

And what do we take from all of this? Well first of all that currently the law does not move quick enough to resolve matters for Landlords under such circumstances; it does not make sense for anybody to be left waiting for two years for a decision to be arrived at and even if it had been heard the first time the case was cancelled it would still have been nearly a year. That the reasons why such a case can be delayed for a further year are too lenient, because it should NOT be possible to postpone a hearing with such ease as was the case for the further delays suffered  and that Landlords need better help from the Deposit holding bodies, as this was a substantial amount they should not have been made to cope without when you consider the amount awarded to the Landlord by the Judge was over £3000.

The good side!

But thankfully the biggest conclusion is that it does pay to take your case to the courts. I of course do not know for sure, but people who leave property in such a condition probably hope the problem will go away because of the trouble needed to pursue the matter to conclusion, but also in the end the courts have awarded correctly and it proves that errant Tenants can be brought to justice if the Landlords have the strength of character to hold true!

12Apr 2012

Property Landlord advice: Choosing a Tenant – Landlords needs first – by law!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

One of the areas that crop up again and again when we are going about our job, is the relationship between ourselves as Agents of the Landlord and our prospective and actual Tenants. It is and always has been in our interests to have good relationships with our Tenants and we continue to promote that at all times, but when it comes to our position legally we have to consider the Landlord above the needs of the Tenant and it is this stance which is often mis-understood!

Tenant’s rights.

 We do of course give the Tenants duty of care, but two situations have arisen this morning which yet again could and possibly does leave us looking like ‘bad boys’ if we proceeded and made what we believe to be the best decisions in the interests of the Landlord. The first issue surrounds another Tenant viewing and proceeding with a property before a second prospective Tenant had viewed. There was a statement made about who was due to see the property first which we could not agree with as we do not give preferential rights of viewing as a Company Policy.  

I saw it first!

This is simple enough to understand, if the first person to phone cannot view for a week, do we stop others who can view today? No because it would not be in the interest of the Landlord and our decision is an easy one! In this case what has clouded the issue for the prospective Tenant, is that they felt they had been promised to be shown first but as we never do give such promises, because it is never in the interests of our Landlords, this would simply never be the case. It is more likely that there was a misunderstanding of what was being asked and promised, but it ended with an nasty phone call to myself and my staff which of course is not acceptable for either party.

Best Tenant.

The second problem was one where in asking for information to assist finding a property for a potential Tenant, nothing has been forthcoming since we asked from the Tenant. Now when they ask to view a property again, which we know will be impossible without the information, do we tell them no without delay? We are of course always charged to find the best Tenant at all times for our Landlords and that inevitably means making decisions. We have to otherwise we would not be doing our job.  But it is highly likely this situation will again end up with a disappointed party, but we are not bound to find property for all who contact us, just those we believe will be good Tenants.

Overiding facts.

In every situation we are bound to make the decision that is in the best interests of our clients and that is our Landlords. This means disappointing some who contact us. But until Tenants understand that we have a legal commitment to serve our Landlords and that overrides any duty of care towards Tenants  (unless that neglect of duty includes an illegal act or stance) such issues will continue to occur. What of course we can hope is that not every time someone does not get what they want it does not end up in aggressive phone calls.

02Feb 2012

Property Landlord advice: Block Management: LVT wash their hands.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Before Christmas this year, I wrote about an LVT case where having proven that the RMC we were acting for were correct in their actions, the remaining Leaseholders had been left to pay the not unsubstantial costs for fighting the case bought by one Leaseholder against the RMC. These costs, as pointed out at the time, were mainly bought about because of the manner in which the LVT instructed us to respond to each and every point raised by the Leaseholder, both in substance and number of points raised.

No recourse.

I have spent several weeks, again making sure no further costs were generated in investigating the situation and without charging for my own time, discovering, that even though the case brought against the Management Company failed in every point, that there is no re-course what so ever to the leaseholder responsible, at all. I am staggered by this, because it now means that the remaining Leaseholders will all share the resulting liability between them and be forced to pay for one persons inability to understand the Landlord and Tenant act and its implications when applied to accounting methods.

Wring case, wrong time.

It would be impractical to list the case as presented to the LVT, but I really cannot understand how, with the knowledge of what the case was based upon, we were instructed by the LVT to have to go to the lengths we were instructed to go to, when had they insisted upon a pre-trial hearing, which is in their power to call, the facts behind what the Leaseholder wanted from the action bought, did not fall within the remit of the LVT in the first place. Having requested such a hearing, I do not believe it fair either to hide behind any lack of request ‘with specific detail listed’ as the LVT should direct in these matters, exactly as they did during the three day hearing!

This is a result?

So the LVT instruct us to put a great deal of time and effort into answering to the case, which has the effect of generating cost that the LVT awarded, so they can be recovered, but not from the Leaseholder who brought the case in the first place, apart from their equal share, but from the remainder of the Leaseholders on the site, when the actual wishes of the Leaseholder who brought the action, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the LVT !! We have done our best to gain instruction from the LVT of our options to seek direct recourse, but rather than tell us the law will not allow such actions, we were again advised to seek the information elsewhere, which, if not for relationships called upon from our contact base, could have caused further cost in discovering the RMC is powerless under these circumstances.

Some may call that justice; some may say that the LVT exists to protect Leaseholders, not by my book, not in this case!

16Dec 2011

Property Landlord advice: Block Management: Who does the LVT really serve?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

If a Leaseholder of a site managed by an RMC has a complaint about costs and services, the traditional route for that complaint, if the Leaseholder feels the Management Company has failed to address the issues concerned, is the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) whose job, as stated in the title, is to ensure that Leaseholders are receiving value for money in both the charges levied, money spent and services provided.

On behalf of the Leaseholder.

Therefore, when a Management Company is the subject of a tribunal bought by a Leaseholder, you would assume that the process is there to protect Leaseholders and ensure they ARE getting value for money and that their interests are being taken care of. Especially for investment Landlords, who have of course utilised property as their chosen route of investment, probably of their pension or main asset to be realised upon retirement. But this has proven not to be the case for a tribunal that has just reached determination by the LVT for all of the leaseholders of the site concerned.

Initial problem.

When the paperwork arrived at our office the first thought that entered our heads was why this action was being bought against the RMC concerned (we received it as the Managing agent of the site in question) and upon investigation, realised that the case the Leaseholder had bought was not only wrong in our opinion, but that it was going to take a lot of time and effort and professional advice to fight it on behalf of the RMC. Indeed specialist knowledge was most important and must be required for nearly every Agent in our position, because such matters whilst not rare are not common occurrences and as the LVT Chairman stated in this instance, rarely reach such complicated levels as was produced by the Leaseholder concerned.

Long story short.

The case itself and the detail surrounding it are not central to my main point here, but midway through the process, having answered in a way that we felt was relevant and confirmed what we believed to be the truth behind the case, we were clearly instructed by the LVT to give more information against every point raised in this complicated claim and in much more detail. This we did, but the outcome was that the amount of time and therefore cost that we were generating to fight the case was rising by the week. Indeed, to put together the response requested by the LVT took a total of 65 hours in one week alone. Add the cost of the professional advice, which required two trips to London by three people on two occasions and the time spent writing, processing and gathering data prior to the week spent compiling the reply and the eventual bill would amount to several thousand pounds. On top of this, the three day tribunal, again for three people just kept the cost mounting up.

To fight or not to fight.

Of course, we could have left the case alone and allowed the tribunal to make a decision based upon what they managed to gather from the Leaseholder alone, but the risk, considering the claim was for over £150,000 was just too great. Then there is the position of the RMC Directors to be considered. I know why such people take up the role of Director and one requirement they should not expect to have is the kind of specialist knowledge needed to fight a case such as ours. An argument of mine during the case was that if all Directors were supposed to be as knowledgeable as the Leaseholder who bought the case against them obviously was, then 90% of the sites in this Country would never attract a Director at all!

To the outcome!

Now here is my point in all this. We won the tribunal on all counts and were given permission to claim full costs through the collection of fees from the whole site. Now the Directors are left having to explain why the Leaseholders will all face an increase of nearly 25% on next year’s Management fee and all because of the actions of one Leaseholder. But if the LVT is duty bound to listen to such cases, then the Management Company must have the ability to claim the cost of fighting the case and their only route is through Management fees as they have no other source of income. So the obvious point is in what way does this outcome protect the interest of the Leaseholders on this site? The answer unless somebody can tell me differently, is that it does not and I know full well, that the costs generated were very reasonable, having pulled in favours and attracted the support of specialists in Block Management for at least one full day for nothing (purely because of the subject matter itself)

Better way.

For me the Management Company should have a better route for recourse and if the LVT can demand such a high level of input from the respondent then they should have more powers in determining where the responsibility of the costs generated should lie. Perhaps if that were the case then those bringing such actions in the first place would take in to consideration the possible implication of their actions before bringing a case, which unless we find out otherwise, will have no more impact on them than the rest of the property owners on the same site!

07Nov 2011

Property Landlord advice: Landlords visiting property can cause problems.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Once again I have a subject that is very relevant to our own office, as it is based upon something that has caused some consternation this week. It seems that the only way it could have been avoided was to keep a Landlord away from his own property even though the reason for his visit was perfectly reasonable!

Managed should mean Managed.

Of course, when we are appointed by Landlords as their Managing Agent, it is not with the thought that the Landlord is then going to be visiting the property with Tenant ensconced on a regular basis. Far from it, I am a firm believer in encouraging Landlords to stay away from the property, even when they live next door, which happens more often than you would envisage! If we are appointed to be the Landlords representative, then we need to be allowed to do our job and because we have systems which ensure all actions carried out are done so correctly and that all conversations, comments and requests are noted, when this happens outside of our control it can leave us with problems, either then or later.

Coming back to bite you.

The instance that happened this week was of a Landlord unable to recall exactly what was said during a visit made (with permission of course!) to carry our maintenance (another blog all in its own right!) but it was the subject of the conversation which was the problem, because the Tenant having left the property, is being asked to decorate a bedroom back from purple walls to magnolia and yet they are stating they sought and gained the Landlords approval when they spoke.

Correct procedures at all times.

The main point here is that every member of our staff knows that as soon as any Tenant asks about decoration, we have a set procedure which includes confirmation in writing of both the request and response as well as submitting sample colours for approval. The same applies to any conversation which may have implications, we record the content, but what it is difficult to do is point out to the Landlord that they have gone about matters the wrong way by not informing us of the request when the initial approach was first made.   

Implications.

In this case, it is going to be difficult to prove the Tenant wrong, especially as we have nothing in writing to back up our case should the matter go to arbitration through the TDS scheme, which it probably will, so we may see the Landlord having to both paint the bedroom himself and pay for the privilege as a result of what started out as an innocent property visit carried out by the Landlord.

Recommendations.

So it is for cases such as this that we try wherever possible to encourage Landlords to stay away from their own property, or at the very least, to always ask the Tenants to contact us about any issue they raise, no matter how small, rather than get involved themselves, no matter how innocent the subject appears. Only then can we ensure that we remain in control of the situation and able to ‘Manage’ the position on behalf of the Landlord, after all I am yet to find any Landlord who approved purple paint for any room in their house!

27Sep 2011

Property Landlord advice: Law of Agency must be understood.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

One of the basic but most important principles behind what we do as Letting Agents is the ‘Law of Agency’ which covers our responsibility to our Landlords. I have referred to this in my blogs before, but it is not something that is heavily reported on and a principle which I believe a large amount of Letting Agents do not understand. The basis behind the principle, is that Law of Agency describes our relationship with the Landlord, who, of course first and foremost are our customer, but it is the greater level of responsibility that Agent of the Landlord brings with it that is not understood.

The Landlord says so.

Under the Law of Agency, as long as what we are asked to do on behalf of the Landlord is legal, we must follow the instruction, in exactly the manner in which the Landlord asks us so to do. It is not that difficult to understand and if you look up the meaning of the word Agency in Wikipedia and you will understand that this is not just a wording that describes a Supplier and Customer relationship, rather one that carries a very specific requirement on behalf of the Agent, in the eyes of the law.

So often comes to mind.

It is not difficult therefore to imagine scenarios in our industry where problems can occur and because it is something that I repeatedly quote when discussing cases with our own office in Stafford, it is never far from my mind. The latest scenario surrounds two Landlords who have changed their mind over what they expected from their Tenants when they were vacating property at the end of Tenancies and whilst it would be wrong to go into any detail at all, both surrounded a change of mind in what they expected the Tenants to do.

Tenants are correct!

The problem being that it falls upon us to carry out the Landlords wishes, providing they do not break any law, to the full. So even though we know what we are requesting is incorrect, we must still carry this through. Of course should the Tenant then come back to us and state that we know the opposite to what we are asking, it is still our role to confirm the Landlords wishes and at no point should we show any indication or make any statement that the Tenant is correct in what they say.

Deposit system.

 Of course the problem becomes a little more relevant when the request surrounds the Deposit and what the Landlord is requesting has financial implications, but no matter! Under such circumstances it is a very small leap to a disputed Deposit and all the work encompassed within the system for the Agent. So here we are, knowing that the decisions made by the Landlord are probably going to lead to his losing his case (or of course it could and so often is the other way round!) but we still have to go through the process and present the case in the best interest of the Landlord and that is what the Law of Agency is all about! But should we openly tell the Tenant the Landlord is wrong, or ever be seen to place the interest of the Tenant above the interest of the Landlord then we place ourselves in a position where we can be pursued legally, for breaking our role as agent of the Landlord! This is what is not understood, in my belief by so many Letting Agencies in this Country.

 Purjery!

Of course, even though we may disagree and know that the claim is not correct in its substance, we do not have to perjure ourselves, because should the matter become legal or even subject of a counter claim by the Tenant, when asked what happened behind the situation, we do then have the opportunity to tell it as it is. I have known a situation where legal representation on behalf of a Tenant asked for a written statement from the Agent and of course in sending the statement (which confirmed the Landlord had changed his mind over approval of decoration) the Tenant’s case was proven.

Principle holds.

The point is that in asking for the money from the Tenant we are following the Landlords wishes, and that is what we must do, when asked to confirm what we knew of the situation (by somebody such as a TDS adjudicator) we of course tell the truth as I for one would never perjure myself, but with an eye to the Law of agency, I will advise the Landlord of my feelings and point out that should I be asked what I knew of the circumstances, I would only tell it as it is!

08Jul 2011

Property Landlord advice: Periodic Tenancies – friend or foe?

⋅ 2 Comments

By Mike Edwards

Under the provisions of section 5 Housing Act 1988 when a fixed term tenancy reaches its last fixed date from the next day onwards it becomes a periodic tenancy. This is an automatic process, no-one has to do anything and it happens whether or not the landlord is happy about it, or would prefer a new fixed term agreement to be in place. Either party can state if they want another fixed term but if the other party doesn’t agree then they are going to end up at best with a periodic tenancy. Or if it is the landlord that is insisting on a fixed term then his only option is to give notice to the existing tenant and find a new one.

Landlords decision.

Few Landlords normally feel that strongly but occasionally if the initial agreement is ending at a date that could make the end of any replacement tenancy awkward – say between mid November and mid March, then it is not uncommon for that Landlord to seek a longer term in an attempt to avoid having to re-let at what is generally acknowledged to be the worst time of the year. It is very much horses for courses at the end of a fixed term as to what the parties would prefer, or indeed insist upon. There are advantages and disadvantages for both parties both in being committed to a fixed term or in having a periodic tenancy. The most obvious for the Landlord is he is at the mercy of a month’s notice from the tenant at any time.

It’s that last day rule again!

The notice must expire on the last day of a period of the tenancy, so if rent is due as per the agreement 1st monthly the notice and any obligations under it – such as rental payments – must continue until that date unless the parties mutually agree an earlier surrender of the tenancy. The Landlord must give two months notice if it is an AST or an AT with the same end of notice period dating requirements. These were clarified in Church Commissioners v Meya (2006) in the Appeal Court and thus the decision is binding on lower Courts.

Notice period.

The requirement of two months notice in a periodic tenancy sometimes causes Landlords real difficulties so the trick is to do a standard visit 10 – 12 weeks before the known end date of the tenancy and while looking around subtly sound out the tenant’s intentions. If there is any hint they might want to go periodic rather than sign up for another fixed term (if that is what the Landlord wants) then serve a s21(1)(b) during the fixed term as a belt and braces position to protect the landlord. The matured notice can then be used at any time during the periodic state. This was enshrined in Case Law many years ago as there is no time stipulation stated in the Statute for how long a matured s21 notice remains valid and can be used in Court. So you could serve a s21(1)(b) on day 2 of a 6 month AST if you like and use it to evict the tenant after he has been periodic for 5 years or any time.

Agreed solution.

Finally if the tenant does want to go periodic then on giving one month’s notice a 13(2) notice can be used if a rent increase is due. A fixed term does give the landlord more certainty – but like the tenant it does mean he is stuck with the other party if his plans change and he wants the house back, so the key to unlock any problems? Discussion! Talk to your Tenants and reach an agreement that satisfies everybody – ah the art of Management!

29Apr 2011

Property Landlord advice: 'Local Housing Allowance cuts' interpretation still in the grey!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

Many Landlords aware of the proposed cuts in Local Housing Allowance (LHA) formerly Housing Benefit understand that the cuts only apply to new tenancies commencing from the 1st of April onwards. But we have become aware of a case where the tenancy commenced on the 16th of March on a 12 month tenancy. The rent was £2300 a month on a London 5 bed house which the local LHA office had agreed to pay when the claim commenced on the 16th March.

However in early April the tenant received notification that as from the 1st April, LHA of £1500 only would be paid. Can this significant shortfall be right?

If the LHA prove to be in error and will in fact pay the agreed figure of £2300 for the 12 month duration (because the tenancy was created before the 1st of April deadline when the changes were introduced in London), this raises another question. What of existing tenancies created before the deadline which have gone periodic? My guess would be that a periodic has the same new rules applied. After all it could stay periodic forever and never be subjected to the changes which rather defeats the object of them. 

The danger here is how the new rules are interpreted, and local variations are not unknown as with Council Tax where, for example, when discounts applied on unoccupied properties some CB offices said a property had to be uninhabitable as opposed to what the rules said – uninhabited!! Similarly when the under 25’s rules on the then Housing Benefit came in many years ago they were only supposed to apply to new claimants not existing ones and not even on their annual reassessments.

In fact many HB offices (wrongly) reduced the payment down to the new room allowance for all under 25 year old existing claimants though admittedly from their next annual reassessment.

In terms of what an LHA office will allow and what they will not they are bound by the terms of the Regulations and the rules are clearly laid out in the guidance manual at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lha-guidance-manual.pdf  and scroll down to

8.030.  

But there are a number of possibilities in this particular case. Firstly, this could simply be a misunderstanding. The rate for that property is capped to a 4 bed rate from 1 April, but any existing tenants would enjoy 9 months transitional protection. It is possible that the letter from the LHA office is simply informing of the new benefit level, ignoring the protection that exists for any current tenant. So maybe the LHA office will honour the existing rent for one month only before applying the cut?