Entitlement Prior to moving in & Probation Hostel??

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22768
    ig2kbar
    Participant

    A guy was living in a in a Probation Hostel after release from Prison and secured tenancy of a rented property – he was liable to pay rent from 08.05.2006 – but did not actually move into the property until 18.05.06 as he was prevented from moving into the property by the Probation Hostel until the property he had secured had the basic necessities i.e cooker, bed , furniture etc – he got his ‘basic needs’ by 18.05.06 and moved in on that date.
    He claimed housing benefit on 08.05.06 but it was only granted from 18.05.06 the date he occupied, he requested backdating to 08.05.06 but was refused on the grounds that he did not fulfil criteria for Reg 7-( 8 ) – entitlment prior to moving in BUT looking at Reg 7 (5) which states – “Where a person is required to reside in a dwelling which is a bail hostel or probation hostel approved by the Secretary of State under section 9(1) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000(a), he shall not be treated as occupying that dwelling as his home” help me out here – confused !!! but does that mean then he would be treated as occupiying the property he had taken up tenancy on from 08.05.06 “as his home” thereby allowing payment from 08.05.06 ❓

    #9511
    ig2kbar
    Participant

    Anybody 😆

    #9512
    markp
    Participant

    OK

    Head above parapet, but body armour removed as needed elsewhere!

    As I read your post the CJCSA means that he is not treated as liable for the bail hostel (but am no lawyer so could be totally wrong) therefore could claim for entitlement prior to moving in. It will depend if you could treat the hostel as residential accommodation which I don’t think you can and the reference to only appears in the 52 week temp absence rules.

    However Sir Crispin Agnew’s decision (CSHB/873/05 *may* help you although it does relate to overlapping payments. That deemed a claimant to have moved in, even though they hadn’t and so HB was, in his view payable. This decision is likely at some point to be challenged so I don’t have a lot of faith in it.

    Does your claimant have a disability premium, an age related premium or responsiblity for a child aged under 6 and was he awaiting a SF payment for essential items? If so you would be able to get round it that way.

    Otherwise I think you’re stuck with the decision.

    Awaiting the slings and arrows!…………………

    PS Why you work in benefits – they pay you, don’t they!!

    #9513
    jmembery
    Participant

    Clearly, 7(5) means that the bail hostel was not this persons home for benefit purposes.

    The question is therefore where was his home? There is certainly an argument that this new property became his home on 08-05-06.

    If the LA say not, then ask them to tell you exactly where is home was from 08-05-06, and the reasons for their decision to that effect.

    PS – Before anyone moans, I am using the word “home” as shorthand for “Dwelling occupied as his home” as it is quicker to type.

    #9514
    ig2kbar
    Participant

    They don’t pay me enough 😆

    Thank you both for your responses – I am persuaded by the fact that the Probation Hostel could not be considered as his “home” – so his only “home” could be the one he took tenancy of from 08.05.2006………
    he fulfils none of the criteria for entitlment to moving in – not disabled – – not over 60- no child under 6 and awaiting social fund loan etc, etc,.etc really want to pay this just have a little nag that the provision of Reg 7 (5) is not relevant if not moved into other property???

    #9515
    jmembery
    Participant

    I think the already mentioned CSHB/873/05 will help there.
    In that case the claimant was in hospital not a bail hostel, but I think the principal will apply.

    #9516
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Erm, doesn’t CSHB/873/05 have the not inconsiderable handicap of relying on the wrong part of the reg?

    As was mentioned in an earlier thread, CDs should normally be followed until challenged. However, there is another CD which directly contradicts 873 – and happens to have relied on the correct part of the reg….

    http://hbinfo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6833

    Regards

    #9517
    ig2kbar
    Participant

    Sorry – being really stupid here (Hey itss Friday) 😳 BUT looked at Cshb/385./05 and – if Probation Hostel is not considered/construed to be his “home” – cannot consider benefit on two homes??

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.