Can I return to the original question and change my answer slightly? It occurs to me that an absence of 4 weeks is unlikely to be treated in the way I described. I say this because if someone genuinely moves out and them back in again I still think that the 26 week rule applies on their return. But we need to remember also that deductions ARE made for absent non-dependants if the property is still their “normal” home”. For example, when non-deps go on holiday the deductions for them don’t end. So maybe a better answer to Darren’s question is to say that whenever a non-dep returns to a property we need to first decide whether the property constituted their normal home during the absence.
As far as my other suggestion goes about whether the new regs say what they’re supposed to I still think they’re a bit ambiguous – although in practice the intent is fairly clear.
