Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
  • #22912
    Darren Broughton

    Just received this circular and paragraph 14 mentions CSHB 873/05 and CSHB 385/05

    Had a look on the Commissioner’s website but I can’t find them. Does anyone have a link or copies that they could forward?

    Darren Broughton
    Darren Broughton

    I’ve read CSHB 873 05 and I’m struggling to see how the Commissioner could have reached the conclusion that he did.

    Is the Commissioner saying that (old) Reg 5(5)(d) applies where a claimant has moved into a new property and then you consider paying an extra 4 benefit weeks for the period prior to the move (in respect of the new property)?

    Totally confused now 😕


    The decision was based on a lay-out error in both Findlay and, at that time, on DWP’s Blue Volumes website. The latest Findlay has corrected it. Basically, it was all too easy to read the final words in subpara (e) as applying to the whole of Reg 5(5) as was. The Commissioner fell into that trap. The earlier decision by Commissioner May is the one to follow.

    See previous lengthy discussion:


    Kevin D

    These earlier threads may help:




    NB: What does G10 say? I haven’t got access to it yet.


    Darren Broughton

    [i:a679dde68b]Temporary absence – CSHB 873/05 and CSHB 385/05

    14 We have received queries about these two Commissioner’s decisions and would like to stress that both decisions are of equal status and therefore LAs are free to follow either decision, so long as the facts and law applicable to the case are consistent with the decision you are following.

    15 However, I would like to confirm that Commissioner May’s decision in CSHB 385/05 does uphold the policy intention.[/i:a679dde68b]

    That’s all they mentioned in the Circular – which meant I then had to source the decisions and get all confused.


    I think that’s exactly what he’s saying! Which is not very helpful as the other decision says the opposite!

    It appears that the Com. in 873/05 is reading what appears to be the last sentence of 7(6)(e) as applying to the whole of reg.7(6) rather than only to (e). I don’t think that can be right as that interpretation conflicts with the other paras in reg.7(6).

    For example 7(6)(a) states ‘for a period not exceeding 52 weeks’ – I do not see how that can be reconciled with the sentence ‘for a period not exceeding 4 benefit weeks immediately preceeding the date on which he moved’. Also, how can that sentence apply to 7(6)(c), where a family has been housed in two separate dwellings? For one thing they have not ‘moved’ in the sense indicated in the sentence immediately after para (e), and secondly how can 7(6)(c) be limited to four weeks? What would be the point in having it at all? It is clearly contemplated to refer to an unavoidable long term arrangement.

    I think 873/05 has to be wrong in law, which is kind of unfortunate since it would provide a good way of paying claimants in the situation which occured in that case.

    edit: Sorry, Kevin, Peter and Darren all posted whilst I was writing my post so it’s a bit out of synch!

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.