Reply To: Underlying entitlement where claimant has permanently moved away


i think you are making thing more complicated than they need to be – lets forget where the original claiamnts new homne is, thats really not relevant
He left the house where HB was in payment

reg 104 applies says the , the relevant authority shall deduct any amount of housing benefit which should have been determined to be payable [F1to the person from whom the overpayment is recoverable or their partner

the key phrase id ” OR THEIR PARTNER”

so you have an overpayment because Mr vacated the address.
U.ent means you are obliged to look at what would have happened had you known and what benefit would have been payable if the partner was entitled at that address based on her income/ciercumstances.

I admit I was a bit unsure previously when I had a case where the claimant had becaome a student, – the partner couldnt make a new claim for HB as was working age. but U/ent is a notional thing, its not real money and its definately NOT housing benefit . at this point – all it is doing is reducing an overpayment.

So you got a overpayment cos you didnt know Mr had left and therefore he wasnt entitled.
you are not worried about whether Ms PArtner could legally or tecnically claim, because you are not awarding HB.
What you need to do is look at the overpayment and say ” well, if she was the claimant and he left, what HB would have been payable>?
you reduce the overpayment by that amount to apply the underlying entitlement.

1 c means you cant apply U/ent if the clamy has moved out – but it doesnt mention not applying U/ent in respect of the Partner who is still resident

By all means take it to tribunal to get clarification and to put your mind at rest if you arent happy/convinced.
but once we understand that U/.ent isnt real entitlement and therefore doesnt foolow the rules of who can claim HB and who cant, it becomes much easier to get your head around. .