Terms & Conditions

[jaws]

Hi Everyone

Thanks for all you responses

[markp]

Not what you’ll want to see, but I think the 13 weeks should apply here. Your scenario fits exactly into the situation outlined in para 9.51 of the SHAC book. The reg doesn’t allow for the fact that he may only just have “discovered” the HB scheme. Prior to awarding the 13 week protection I would ask if there are arrears of rent from before the claim but I would suspect not.

Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

[Anonymous]

Expanding on what Mark P has said, HB reg 13 prescribes that the 13 week protection [b:13c4ead714]will[/b:13c4ead714] apply if the financial commitments for the dwelling could be met when they were entered into. Subject to the provisos about not claiming in the last 52 weeks and that the person who could “meet the commitments” was the claimant or a member of the family that is all that needs to be shown.

“Financial commitments” means more than just the rent – think about Council Tax, Utilities and so on.

“When they were entered into” means just that, at the time the agreement was make; at the point the tenancy was signed.

Moreover, it doesn’t matter [i:13c4ead714]how[/i:13c4ead714] the commitments could be met, just that they [i:13c4ead714]could [/i:13c4ead714]be. This means they don’t have to have been working.

Theoretically, it is possible to get 13 week protection on the same tenancy again and again (subject to the no claim in the last 52 weeks rule). I though that there was to be a change in the legislation to stop that but I don’t think I’ve seen it yet. Always happy to be corrected though…

[Kay_Tade]

Totally agree with Darren, as long as the 52 week no HB entitlement (Note even if a claim had been made in last 52 weeks and no entitlement, they still qualify) is met then they are protected for 13 weeks from date of claim.

And there is nothing in current legislation, that I am aware off (could always be wrong) :D, to stop qualification if there is a 52 week break in entitlement at the same property.

[Anonymous]

On a similar theme we have the following:

Student occupies property in September 2007 and signs 12 month lease.

July 2008, ceases course and claims HB (must be a law student as has claimed 13 week protection)

His argument was that when he took on the tenancy he could meet the financial committments.

One point of view has been put forward that he knew he couldn’t meet the financial committments for the duration of the tenancy as he knew he would cease to be a student in July (and end financial support)

I’m inclined to agree with the claimant.

does anyone agree?

[Carol Meredith]

I would agree with the claimant as well! He would surely argue he expected to secure employment at the end of his course anyway.
Carol

[Author]

Posts