Terms & Conditions

[Tinab]

Can someone help me with this please. I have read the decision CH3616 but cant get to grips with the point the Commissioner is making.

We have a case where the claimant left the country and rented out her home (for which she had a mortgage) She could not afford the upkeep so sold the home and on return to this country she rented a property. She was given the opportunity to rent her former home at a lower rent and as the condition of the property was better she took the tenancy.

How does this case fit with the commissioner’s decision, we are satisfied that she is not abusing the scheme but at the end of the decision the commissioner states that “the exception does not apply”.

[david farrar]

As I understand it, Commissioner Jacobs is saying that the claimant is only protected from Reg 7(1)(h) if they had to sell the property to remain in occupation.

However in that case and yours, the claimants were not in occupation and therefore they cannot have the protection mentioned above.

[Tinab]

Thanks for your help.

[Nicky]

I haven’t had a chance to re-read it but I’m pretty sure that in ch/716/2002 the commissioner decided that where a claimant owned a dwelling, sold it and moved out for a period and then rented it some time later then 7(1)(h) didn’t really apply and it was for the authority to decide under 7(1)(a) or (l) only.

May be wrong as I haven’t got access to my CD’s at the moment but it may be worth checking the decision out.

[Kevin D]

The decision in CH/0716/2002 was based on a case where the “old” version of old HBR 7(1)(h) applied. From May 2001 (I think), the issue of occupancy being continuous / non-continous no longer has any effect for the purposes of “old” HBR 7(1)(h).

In fact, 3616 specifically points out that 716 has no effect in terms of the occupancy aspect.

Regards

[Author]

Posts