You could try asking Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt QC…

More seriously, Reg 7(6) lists five scenarios where a person can be treated as occupying two homes concurrently, and hence HB paid for the dual liabilities.

Sir Crispin has applied what is now Reg 7(6)(d), which reads:

‘Where a person is liable to make payments in respect of two (but not more than two) dwellings, he shall be treated as occupying both dwellings as his home only…in the case where a person has moved into a new dwelling occupied as the home…for a period not exceeding 4 benefit weeks if he could not reasonably have avoided liability in respect of two dwellings.’

So…claimant is at the Women’s Refuge and takes a new tenancy. She remains at the Refuge for a while, until she receives a grant which allows her to furnish the new accommodation. She moves into the new property and claims benefit for that address, having also been liable at the Refuge until she vacated. (Nice typo on Sir Crispin’s part when he refers to ‘the refuse’.)

So, applying 7(6)(d) –

Did she have a concurrent liability on two homes? Yes

Has she moved into a new dwelling and occupied it as her home? Yes

Could she have reasonably avoided the dual liability? No

So is she entitled to up to 4 weeks overlapping benefit? Yes

I have not waded through any of the other threads or CDs mentioned, so I don’t know why Kevin is saying that where the second home has been occupied after the liability start date you can only pay on two homes using 7(6)(e) has come from. Applying 7(6)(d) in isolation, as Sir Crispin has done, when the liabilities started and when the move took place is irrelevant.