It doesn’t matter who investigates – all that matters are the facts, whoever obtains / establishes them.
In my view, the IS hearing must always be heard first where the issue is related to income or cap. Although, in reality, I can’t see that there would be any issue if the Tribunal heard BOTH hearings concurrently; especially where some of the facts overlap.
For example, what if the Trib decided that the clmt wasn’t living together? Of, even if LTAHAW, the clmt was still entitled to IS in any case? If there is still (lawful) IS entitlement, that is binding for HB/CTB.
Also, even if there is no IS, there could still be “standard” HB/CTB entitlement, but the LA would need to know, first, that there was no IS entitlement.
Hope the above helps.
