Reply To: Change of address…..again!

#2126
Mark
Participant

Peter – I was too hasty to dismiss the relevance of 17(2). You are quite right about 8(5). This does however mean that there is a valid argument for amending the regulations to avoid the advantageous with an overall shortfall trap.

Your second point is certainly worth considering for any advisor that fancies trying it but I doubt very much that any LA would head in this direction. Things are complicated enough already!

I didn’t mention it earlier but can I also point out that on a straightforward “benefit up or down” version of whether something is advantageous that different results can be achieved in HB than CTB. I know this problem already exists in CTB for cases where single person occupancy discounts are retrospectively awarded but this is another set of circumstances where the relevant dates in HB can be different to CTB.