If an SPD has been awarded from the date of the change in occupation, the effective date of [b:3b18f4306d]that[/b:3b18f4306d] change in liability is determined by 67(3) to be the exact date of the change.
But the change in occupation has another effect – the apportionment of liability under reg 57(3). Should the two outcomes be combined?
We have a change event which is required to be notified, and two direct outcomes. Similar to the common HB situation where a non-dep moves in and the change is reported late. In these situations we would look at the net effect of any increase in RO/LHA rate vs the non-dep deduction. If the change is overall beneficial, late notify dates should be considered.
Maybe the same should be considered here? Does the combined effect of the reduction in liability due to the SPD and the reapportionment of liability due to the change in occupation reduce or increase the award? I’m guessing the overall effect is beneficial. Therefore, maybe CTB should be calculated based on 50% of 100% of the liability (ignoring any SPD) up to the date of the notification; then 100% of 75% of the liability from that date?
Unfortunately – some Councils will not award SPDs retrospectively.
This is a bit of a mess – it might be easier for you to just think of some special circumstances for the delay notifying the change…