Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

I read the HB(over 60) reg 7 para 8, c as meaning that (unlike under 60’s) 60+claimants CAN get HB prior to occ for up to 4 wks where delay is due to awaiting social fund claim or being in hospital, even if liable for rent on 2 homes. This is because para 8 (c) is referred to in para 7 (6) e(i) which talks about 2 dwellings.
However a colleague disagrees saying she’s read something that says although it looks like this is what it means, it doesn’t.
She’s usually right!
Can one of you clever people clarify for me?
cheers. and Happy new Year 🙂

[Kevin D]

Having had a quick read, my view is that the provision is identical irrespective of age.

For [b:a4675479f8]HBR 7(6)(e)[/b:a4675479f8] to apply, [b:a4675479f8]HBR 7(8 )(c)[u:a4675479f8](i)[/u:a4675479f8][/b:a4675479f8] must be satisfied. That requires that the delay in moving in [u:a4675479f8]must[/u:a4675479f8] have been [u:a4675479f8]necessary[/u:a4675479f8] for the dwelling to be adapted for the disablement needs of the clmt, or a member of the family.

None of the other options under [b:a4675479f8]HBR 7(8 )(c)[/b:a4675479f8] matter – sub para [u:a4675479f8][b:a4675479f8]”i”[/b:a4675479f8][/u:a4675479f8] must be satisfied.

As an aside, carpeting / decorating etc do not count as adapting a dwelling for disablement needs.

Hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

[quote:25b323feae]carpeting / decorating etc do not count as adapting a dwelling for disablement needs[/quote:25b323feae]

In the normal course of events, I agree with that…but there was a case years before TAS/TTS where carpeting/flooring (or perhaps it was the removal of same) was held to be adaptation for disablement needs where the claimant’s child had chronic asthma and the old floor covering was apparently full of dust mites, was there not?

[Kevin D]

No idea Andy. But recentish CDs have been fairly emphatic that neither carpeting nor normal decoration count as “adaptations” in the context of HBR 7(8 )(c)(i). The following CDs have looked at adaptations:

[b:cf2f23a07f]CSH/0149/2006 (p7)
CH/1363/2006 (p7)
CH/3857/2004
CH/3458/2004 (p8 )[/b:cf2f23a07f]

CSH/0149/2006 is particularly strong as it considers arguments raised to try and distinguish earlier CDs.

Regards

[Anonymous]

yes you’re so right Kevin D- why did i not notice it only referred to (i) and not (ii) and (iii)? Must really get my eyes tested, and maybe my head examined while i think of it….thanks.

[Author]

Posts