Coastal 2

The first post on this blog concerned the blockbuster judgment in Coastal Housing Group v Mitchell.  In short, it will be remembered that contract-holders who were not served with electrical condition reports by their landlords occupied properties which were deemed by law to be unfit for human habitation.  One consequence of that deeming provision is that rent was not required to be paid and therefore not lawfully due during that period.  Having made that finding – which, I understand, is subject to a permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal – there is a further question of interest to the affected housing providers which is what is to happen either to the rent paid by contract-holders during that period or rent not paid during that period.  I understand that a further case raising this issue is at some stage (perhaps somebody could enlighten me about which stage is at – possibly, if issued, it has been stayed pending any appeal).

That question is also of interest to the DWP.  Thanks to Justin Bates KC (h/t), who Blueskied (if that’s the right term?) about the LA Welfare Direct Bulletin, the DWP’s rather gnomic view is as follows:

“11. Where an HB claimant enacts this clause in their occupation agreement [ie the unfitness clause], they cease to be liable to pay rent. Consequently, the claimant ceases to be eligible to receive HB and any award must end in line with the usual rules.

12. Contract-holders (tenants) in receipt of HB should seek advice on the potential impact of enacting this clause on the benefit they receive.”

Anybody with any questions is encouraged to contact housing.policyenquiries@dwp.gov.uk.  I suspect that there might be some questions …