Reply To: two homes benefit – is reg7(6) exhaustive?

#9952
Kevin D
Participant

Emma,

Firstly, I agree with edhorn’s analysis of HBR 7(6).

Next, the wording of the provisions of HBR 7(6) are such that, in my view, the current provisions are exactly what is intended. Reasoning behind that analysis goes as follows:

1) HBR 7(6)(d) was amended a few years ago to strengthen the “unavoidable” part.

2) HBR 7(7) was added relatively recently – but not for 2-homes.

Given the above, it would appear that the Government of the day (covering both Tory & Labour eras) has had ample opportunity to make further amendments, but has pro-actively decided not to. If that is so, it seems reasonable to conclude that the DWP / government are satisfied that HBR 7(6) provides what is currently intended.

Also, some of the CDs on 2-homes analyse the provisions in such a way that, arguably, support a view that the current provisions are intended. There are a few CDs in the case law section on this site. Via the link below, the brief description for the CDs include the phrase “2 homes”:

new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2a/cdoccupancy/cdoccupancy.htm

Regards

Regards