I agree with Peter Barker that where the claimant has not yet moved out of the old home, its is only possible for HB to be paid on the new home where it is being adapted for disability needs, but I disagree with the previous posts re benefit on 2 homes where the same landord is involved with both.
This is because despite the DWP guidance, the Regulations concentrate on whether or not the CLAIMANT reasonably have avoided the dual liability. The actions of any landlord who effectively adopted a take it or leave it approach, even when both properties are ownd by that same landlord does not come into this question.
Contast the question of unavoidable liability in what is now Reg 7(6)(d)
“in the case where a person has moved into a new dwelling occupied as the home, except where paragraph (4) applies, for a period not exceeding 4 benefit weeks if he could not reasonably have avoided liability in respect of two dwellings; ”
with the question of whether it is resonable that benefit should be paid in Reg 7(6)(a)
“a) for a period not exceeding 52 weeks in the case where he has left and remains absent from the former dwelling occupied as his home through fear of violence in that dwelling or by a former member of his family and—
(i) it is reasonable that housing benefit should be paid in respect of both his former dwelling and his present dwelling occupied as the home;”
The absence of a reuirement that “it is resonable that housing benefit be paid..” in Reg 7(6)(d) means that Councils have far less scope to refuse HB on 2 homes where a notice period has to be served, even where the same landlord is involved with both properties
The reasons landlords stick rigidly to the notice period is simple. It avoids voids. Dont forget that landlords (even RSL’s) may well have mortgages or loans to pay on their properties. The lenders are no going to forgo the interest just because the place is empty
.
