Terms & Conditions

[ann_i]

I have a case where a claimant was placed under Section 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Guardianship) in a residentail home in June 2006. We cancelled HB entitlement from 04.06.2006 based on a memo received from Social Services.
The Social Worker is now trying to state that HB should be awarded until the 18.09.2006 because the claimant had a right of appeal to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (which they allowed him 2 months) after which they gave his 4 weeks notice to the Housing Asscoiation.
Is my understanding right that we can only award 4 weeks from the 04.06.2006 under Reg 7 (7) and that the fact they were waiting for a potential appeal is irrelevant?

[Kevin D]

The test is whether or not the clmt had an intention to return home. The intention must have been realistic. A “desire” to return is not enough.

Therefore, the right to appeal is only relevant as evidence in the context of intention. Ironically, the Social Worker is arguably weakening their own client’s case. If no appeal was made, would that not suggest there was no intention to return? Paradoxically, if the SW then argued the clmt wasn’t fit to make an appeal, would that not indicate the clmt was too ill to return home (realisitically)?

Whichever way it’s looked at, the crux is “intention”.

As an aside, and in anticipation of such an argument by the SW, the “centre of interest” test is not appropriate for HB cases.

Regards

[ann_i]

Kevin thank you for such a speedy response to my post.

The original memo from Social Servies clearly states that there was no intention of returning home. I
I will therefore award the extra 4 weeks and wait for the barrage of phone calls and letters from the Social worker.

Again Many Thanks

[Author]

Posts