A18 2005 & A8 2006 Council Tenant Change of Address

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22604
    seanosul
    Participant

    I am wondering how other Councils have dealt with mid week changes of address between Council Tenancies (I can imagine some RSLs as well) where the tenant vacates but is not liable at the new address until the following Monday. There are two schools of thought; one is terminate the claim, as there is no entitlement due to not having a liability at the new address, resulting in a requirement to complete a new claim form but enabling us to pay the old claim to the end of the week. The other school of though is horrible but it would mean that we would process according to the change of address rules by diving rent a by 7 and multiplying by number of days and the new rent of zero. Option B still fits within the new change of circs rules but is not customer or assessor friendly (especially on SX3), option a is not customer friendly as it requires a new claim form.

    #8773
    Darren Broughton
    Participant

    Your first scenario is correct. Since there is no immediate liability at the new address then you have to cancel from the Sunday following the move and the claim at the new address becomes a “new claim”. I queried this with the DWP (Christine Watkins) who confirmed my understanding was correct – see below

    [i:7c7a48591d][b:7c7a48591d]Q[/b:7c7a48591d]
    Christine,

    Could you please confirm if my understanding of the following is correct –

    Existing claimant moves on a Wednesday to an new property. Liability at the old address continues to the Sunday, but liability at the new address doesn’t start until the Monday following the move (this is quite common when an LA tenant moves property – the Council allow them to move in a few days before actual liability starts)

    My understanding is that since there is no immediate liability at the new address, then we can’t treat this as a Change in Circumstances and must end the claim at the old address from the Sunday following the move. The claim at the new address should then be treated as a new claim and can only be paid from the Monday that liability starts (providing the claimant satisfies the conditions for a new claim to start from the liability start date).

    Is this correct?

    [b:7c7a48591d]A[/b:7c7a48591d]

    Darren,

    Thanks for the message. Your understanding is spot on.

    Regards

    Christine[/i:7c7a48591d]

    #8774
    seanosul
    Participant

    Thanks – exactly what I wanted to hear 🙂

    #8775
    Kevin D
    Participant

    An alternative argument….

    In trying to unscramble this, I may have missed something. But, here goes anyway….

    In the circumstances described, there doesn’t appear to be any break in entitlement. Therefore, why is a new claim needed?

    Why no break? If liability ends midweek for address “A”, HB [u:830b4b62c5]entitlement[/u:830b4b62c5] still runs to the Sunday. The “part week calc” for rent is only for the purpose of assessing the amount of rent to be used for that benefit week – HB is still for the whole week. If that is correct, HB is continuous and it is just a change of circs.

    Regards

    #8776
    Anonymous
    Guest

    The two awards of benefit may be ‘seamless’, but the point is that there is a break in liability, and that is what gives rise to the need for a new application form.

    #8777
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Hi Andy,

    Agreed – there is a break in liability. But what counts is whether there is a break in entitlement.

    HBR 80 is only a deeming provision for the calculation of the amount of rent used in a benefit week. HBR 80 simply reduces the amounts for that week to give the effect of a split week, but the resulting HB is still for the whole of the week.

    It’s the same for start dates for new claims (leaving hostels out of the mix). HB always starts from a Monday – never in midweek. It is only HBR 80 that gives the illusion of a midweek start.

    So long as there is no break in [u:9b2a2c7788]entitlement[/u:9b2a2c7788], no new claim is needed.

    Regards

    #8778
    Darren Broughton
    Participant

    But didn’t SI 2502 2005 change Reg 79 so that where a person moves into a new address, that change takes place on the day of the move? Wouldn’t that then lead to a break in entitlement?

    #8779
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Yes, it’s not true to say that entitlement always commences on a Monday…which could also have been the case for monthly liabilities in the days of benefit periods.

    #8780
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Darren: Yes – that crossed my mind about 5 minutes after logging off last night. My post was rubbish in respect of that point :). I agree that in the circs given, the current regs mean a midweek end does occur. Another fine example of “simplification”… 3 day gap and “boom”, new claim needed.

    Andy: In the days of benefit periods for cal mthly cases, benefit still took effect from the Monday. Just the amounts were apportioned for “first week” cases. For start dates, I think that is still true.

    Regards

    #8781
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Yes, that’s true…I am getting muddled because with the system I used to use you had to put the exact day for monthlies…but as was pointed out yesterday, just because the system does it…

    #8782
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Anyway, back to the point in question…

    Having mulled this over for a while, I like Kevin’s explanation about Reg 80. But that leaves a problem, I’m told…Northgate can’t handle the break in entitlement for a Council tenant. Time to go to the system boards, I guess…

    #8783
    Darren Broughton
    Participant

    Why can’t Northgate handle cases like this if you follow the methodology stated in my previous posting? The claim at the old address gets cancelled from followng Sunday due to end in entitlement, and you treat the claim at the new address as a “new claim”. Am I missing something?

    #8784
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Yes – I don’t want to treat it as a new claim, but as a continuous period…I haven’t tried it on Northgate myself, someone here told me it couldn’t do it, but now they seem to have changed their minds…I think they’re hammering away on test even now…

    #8785
    Darren Broughton
    Participant

    But it isn’t a continuous period though, so how can you treat it as one?

    #8786
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Because if you accept Kevin D’s analysis above, it is a continuous period.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 47 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.