Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

Agree with Mark.

Whoever wrote the DWP reply seems to me to be thinking in the old way: s/he hasn’t got used to the implications of no benefit periods.

The reply does not even stand up to its own logic (which I don’t agree with in any case). The official argues that entitlement must end if the claimant no longer occupies the dwelling, but surely the whole point of an in-area move is that the claimant [b:54ab1289e6]does [/b:54ab1289e6]occupy a dwelling at all times? All that’s changed is, usually, the amount of rent (and perhaps not even that).

Therefore the bit about retrospectively terminating and offsetting underlying entitlement does not apply even if you accept the rest of the reply.

Another thing: [i:54ab1289e6]”Where the claimant neither tells you about the move nor provides evidence of their new liability ‘on time’, a superseding decision should be made to terminate benefit as soon as you become aware of the move, unless you accept that there were special circumstances behind the delay. If special circumstances are not accepted a new claim must be made”[/i:54ab1289e6]

I don’t agree. The special circumstances rule only applies to [b:54ab1289e6]advantageous[/b:54ab1289e6] changes. There is no legal basis whatsoever for using the special circumstances rule to decide between ending or adjusting benefit.