I think the Regs are very clear on the discharged liability v income issue. Extract from HB Reg 42:
[i:3fd8a5e325]”(6) Any payment of income … made—
…
(b) to a third party in respect of a single claimant or in respect of a member of the family (but not a member of the third party´s family) shall … be treated as possessed by that single claimant or by that member to the extent that it is used for the food, household fuel or, subject to paragraph (13), rent or ordinary clothing or footwear, of that single claimant or, as the case may be, of any member of that family or is used for any council tax or water charges for which that claimant or member is liable”[/i:3fd8a5e325];
Para (13) defines “rent” as eligible rent less non-dep deductions – in other words, the rent that HB is supposed to cover.
This is backed up by Reg 8 as emmadring says.
So I think the correct approach from the outset would have been to include the £130 as maintenance income (it cannot be voluntary income, as emmadring correctly points out).
