Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • #22614

    Having a bad day!


    New tenancy starts on Monday the 26th of June, but the claimant remains at her old address until Friday the 30th June

    …now the client has asked for HB on 2 homes to cover the dual rental liabilities from Monday the 26th June to Sunday the 3rd July.

    Am I right in thinking that we can only consider HB on 2 homes from the 30th June, the date she moved to the new property?


    Yep, Andy. I reckon you’re about right on that one………
    UNLESS didn’t move due to waiting for adaptations due to a disability.


    cheers Jon, I thought that was right! (no disablement adaptations)

    A welfare rights organisation were insisting I was talking nonsense!

    (well, it’s been known, but I was pretty sure I was right on that one!) 😉


    I think the disabled issue is a red herring. Reg 7(8) allows for the 4 weeks prior to occ but not two homes. That’s regs 7(6) and 7(7).

    Prepared to be corrected though.


    I have a case where they are asking for dual liability, we agreed for the period after the date of move, but then the old landlord told us he was not charging after the date of vacation ‘cos he felt sorry for his tenant, so we just paid for the new address from date of move and stop old address same date. Tenant, with the help of old landlord, is asking for HB for new address prior to moving, says he could not move due to waiting for financial assistance from a community care grant for furniture. Tenant was in supported accommodation so is vulnerable.

    We refused HB prior to move because it does not fall within the rules in Reg 7(6) 2006 regs for two home ‘cos the dual part only counts after you have moved to new address. We refused under HB 7(8) ‘cos not waiting for a social fund loan and this cannot be paid if already claiming elsewhere.

    PS why does (eight) show as a “cool” emotion????

    Old landlord is acting as rep for the appeal and has further muddied the waters by suggesting that he will now charge rent for old address if that will secure benefit than he will give it back to the tenant so he can pay arrears at new address!

    G7 para 20 told LA’s to contact DWP for info on two commissioner pending decision on Reg 5(6) now Reg 7(8), but their reply was the usual, “up to LA to make decisions”. 😮

    Does anyone know what these pending decisions are about and if it is likely to affect the decision not to pay prior to occupation if they have a liability elsehwere during that time?


    [quote:1e4a078ce6=”phil adlard”]I think the disabled issue is a red herring. Reg 7(8) allows for the 4 weeks prior to occ but not two homes. That’s regs 7(6) and 7(7).

    Prepared to be corrected though.[/quote:1e4a078ce6]

    She definitely had benefit at the ‘old’ address, so she doesn’t come under ‘entitlement prior to moving in’…

    No wonder the public can’t get their heads around all these regs! 😉


    Phil is right on the two homes regs – the reference to disability is covered in para 6 (e). All other issues would be covered in para 6. Andy is right in that the unavoidable liability can only be considered from 30.6 with the only exception to that falling under 7 (6) (e).

    My reading anyhow.

    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

    Kevin D

    Where 2-homes is at issue, HB can only be paid under [b:fb231c4523]HBR 7(6)[/b:fb231c4523] – no other provision allows for 2-homes.


    Where occupancy of the 2nd home is AFTER liability, HB can only be considered under [b:fb231c4523]HBR 7(6)([u:fb231c4523]e[/u:fb231c4523])[/b:fb231c4523]. In order to meet this provision, the delay in moving in [u:fb231c4523]MUST[/u:fb231c4523] have been [u:fb231c4523]”….necessary in order to adapt the dwelling to meet the disablement needs of that person or any member of his family…”[/u:fb231c4523]. Any other reason is irrelevant.

    There are several CDs on 2-homes which address this issue – see
    new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2a/cdoccupancy/cdoccupancy.htm (look for “Occ – 2 homes”). Just need to be careful not to confuse with HBR 7(6)([u:fb231c4523]d[/u:fb231c4523]).



    Thanks Kev (and the rest of you), you’re a star!


    So can someone please explain comm dec 873/05?


    I wish I could explain their decisions…

    Oh, and Kev, do you mean reg 7(6) not 7(5)?


    You could try asking Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt QC…

    More seriously, Reg 7(6) lists five scenarios where a person can be treated as occupying two homes concurrently, and hence HB paid for the dual liabilities.

    Sir Crispin has applied what is now Reg 7(6)(d), which reads:

    ‘Where a person is liable to make payments in respect of two (but not more than two) dwellings, he shall be treated as occupying both dwellings as his home only…in the case where a person has moved into a new dwelling occupied as the home…for a period not exceeding 4 benefit weeks if he could not reasonably have avoided liability in respect of two dwellings.’

    So…claimant is at the Women’s Refuge and takes a new tenancy. She remains at the Refuge for a while, until she receives a grant which allows her to furnish the new accommodation. She moves into the new property and claims benefit for that address, having also been liable at the Refuge until she vacated. (Nice typo on Sir Crispin’s part when he refers to ‘the refuse’.)

    So, applying 7(6)(d) –

    Did she have a concurrent liability on two homes? Yes

    Has she moved into a new dwelling and occupied it as her home? Yes

    Could she have reasonably avoided the dual liability? No

    So is she entitled to up to 4 weeks overlapping benefit? Yes

    I have not waded through any of the other threads or CDs mentioned, so I don’t know why Kevin is saying that where the second home has been occupied after the liability start date you can only pay on two homes using 7(6)(e) has come from. Applying 7(6)(d) in isolation, as Sir Crispin has done, when the liabilities started and when the move took place is irrelevant.

    Kevin D

    AndyS – yep. Original post edited.

    A Brady: simple – it was wrongly decided. The Commissioner quoted the wrong law. Fortunately, there is another CD which looked at the same issue and found the other way, but relying on the correct legislation. An earlier thread looks at that case:




    …but I can still see how Sir Crispin came to the conclusion he did, it was simply a matter of how you interpret the wording.

    Kevin D

    But his conclusion was based on the wrong law…..he relied on wording for one part of HBR 7(6) that actually existed in another part. Hence my view that Peter Barker’s analysis is correct (in the earlier thread).

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.