Terms & Conditions

[Stalbansbenefits]

Claimant in hospital and it is decided that she cannot return to her former (Council) flat because it triggers episodes of mental illness. She views another Council property at the end of August and terminates her tenancy at her previous address, but is charged for a notice period.

Claimant is still in hospital when she accepts the tenancy at the new property, and eventually moves in around 5-6 weeks after the tenancy starts.

My question is:

1) Would regulation 7 allow us to continue to pay Housing Benefit for up to 4 weeks at her old home after she decided she could not return to this property; and

2) Would regulation 8(c)(iii) allow us to pay for up to 4 weeks prior to the date she actually moved into her new address; and

3) What happens if these periods overlap? I’m pretty certain I can’t treat her as occupying both properties as Reg 6 doesn’t apply. If that is the case, which rent liability would take precedent?

[Anonymous]

Wait… are these both Council properties in the same Borough? We wouldn’t normally pay an unavoidable liability where the claimant has moved into a different property with the same landlord, so why should Council tenancies be any different? It would be quite easy to allign the two tenancies so that there is no overlap.

Our Council housing department has started trying to enforce the notice period where tenants move from one property to another and we’re keeping a close eye on them. I very much doubt they would do this where the tenant is not receiving HB.

I would say that once she took on the new tenancy, HB for the old property ends due to no further intention to return. Unless she has someone move in her furniture and belongings she could be treated as occupying the new property from four weeks before the date she moves in. I doubt these periods would overlap, but if you had to chose one I would say the existing HB award should take precedance.

[andyrichards]

Please ignore – got completely muddled as to which thread I was looking at!

[Kevin D]

[b:cb9ab40124]CH/1609/2009[/b:cb9ab40124] may be of interest in the context of 2-homes / single home is more beneficial. In short, where more than one provision potentially applies in making a decision relating to occupancy, a clmt can PROSPECTIVELY choose the one most beneficial to him/her. But, that choice CANNOT be retrospective.

[Author]

Posts