Reply To: Absence substantially exceeding 52 weeks

Peter Barker

Have a look at CH/1237/2004 which considers the effect of hindsight. The decision says that entitlement throughout the 52 weeks for which HB could potentially be paid should be based on how things would have looked at the time, week by week, even if you know now that the absence did in fact exceed/substantially exceed 52 weeks. If you would not have expected the absence from home to exceed or substantially exceed 52 weeks in the early stages based on what it was possible to predict at that time, HB can be allowed down to the point at which it would have become clear that the absence was probably going to be substantially more than 52 weeks.

Overnight passes break the absence and reset the clock: R v Penwith DC ex p Burt. The only issue is whether the dwelling remains the claimant’s normal home when lengthy absences are separated by very short returns.

PS … and I in turn overlapped with Nick. I endorse what he says: HB down to May 2020 at the latest under the “no hindsight” principle, but you don’t have to end it from May 2019 when the absence first began

  • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Peter Barker.