13 Week absence -subletting room

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23332
    David
    Participant

    Currently something of a hypothetical question at the moment as exact circumstances have still to be ascertained.

    Large Italian family occupy rented property. Parents go back to Italy to look after sick relative. We don’t know if expect to return within 13 weeks. We’re also not sure whether younger children went with them.

    One of the non-deps lets out a room to a friend (nothing to suggest created to take advantage of HB scheme.)

    Reg 7(13)(b) gives acondition to pay HB is that ‘part of dwelling normally occupied by him (claimant) has not been …sub-let’.

    Two questions (assuming we establish intend to return within 13 weeks):

    1.If the room that’s been sub-let was one of the children’s, am I right in thinking that we could not end the claim? ie occupation would therefore mean exclusive use
    2. If the room was the claimant’s room, would we end claim from the Monday after the room was sub-let or from the the start of the absence?

    The commentary in the CPAG guide offers no guidance on above; I’m sure posters to this board will have some thoughts!

    #12026
    Kevin D
    Participant

    In this situation, I don’t think “exclusive occupation” flies at all – at least not for HB purposes.

    In the context of HBR 9 cases, Cmmrs have consistently found that parts of properties are not separate “dwellings” and there is not exclusive occupation. I’m not convinced that the circs in your case should be treated any differently. Some CDs that may be of interest:

    [b:ba94483809]CH/0542/2006 (p13+)
    CH/3656/2004
    CH/3017/2005 (p12)
    CH/3616/2003[/b:ba94483809]

    If “2” applies, HB will end at the earliest of:

    1) the Monday after sublet begins; OR
    2) the Monday after the date it becomes known that absence will exceed 13 weeks, OR
    3) the Monday after the date on which the clmt no longer intends to return.

    Regards

    #12027
    Mark
    Participant

    [Leaving the exclusive occupation issue to one side] this may be a case where the 52 week absence rules apply (HB Reg 7(16)(c)(v) – “undertaking medically approved care of a person residing in the UK or elsewhere”).

    #12028
    David
    Participant

    Kevin

    Thanks for the CD’s you’ve quoted- I agree with the conclusion you’ve drawn from them. However, do you have a link to the first of those please?

    #12029
    Kevin D
    Participant

    [b:3f0cf9733c]CH/0542/2006[/b:3f0cf9733c]:

    http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=2074

    In my view, CH/0542 is even stronger than the others.

    NB: CH/0542/2006 will be on HBINFO in due course, along with one or two other stragglers.

    #12030
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    If HB is ended due to sublet – could always consider a claim from remaining non-deps (treated as liable?), including, of course, their boarder’s income.

    #12031
    David
    Participant

    Andy

    I don’t agree!

    I can’t see how you can treat others as liable to pay rent if the claimant &partner are temporarily absent – they remain the named tenants &the landlord will be expecting them to pay the rent..
    In this case the non-dep (who isn’t working – unofficially from the landlord perhaps some drug dealing – allegedly!) is almost certainly sub-letting the room without parent’s permission.

    #12032
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    David,

    “temp absence” refers to an HB award. As long as the parent’s award exists, you are right.

    If you end entitlement due to the sub-letting, however, then no HB award exists and the issue of “temp absence” is irrelevant.

    So, if the L/L then states they are happy for the remainder of the family to remain so long as the rent gets paid, they [i:ca7913f16b]could[/i:ca7913f16b] be treated as liable.

    I’ve read somewhere that drug-dealing can be quite lucrative, so they probably wouldn’t qualify anyway based on income.

    #12033
    Kevin D
    Participant

    I had briefly pondered on the option of treating “a.n. other” as being liable, but then [b:e57ea24d55]CSHB/0606/2005[/b:e57ea24d55] came to mind. It’s not quite the same situation, but it may still be of interest.

    In summary (much oversimplified), another person isn’t necessarily to be treated as liable just because someone else is not / no longer entitled to HB.

    new.hbinfo.org.com/comdecs/cshb_0606_2005.doc

    Regards

    #12034
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    👿 🙄 Sometimes you wish you hadn’t bothered.

    Without knowing the ins and outs of the (hypothetical) case, I merely suggested a possibility that could be considered!

    Does this hypothetical non-dep have anything left for sale that would block HB & CTB from my mind for the next 2 weeks? 😉

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.