Terms & Conditions

[MissMoody]

I am trying to action a claim at present. The situation is this;
Son has severe learning dificulties, moving out into privatly rented accomodation and dad handles all of his affairs. Needs two bedrooms as needs full time live in carer. Social services are in the process of arranging a carer but are unsure of when they will be available. The tenancy has been agreed and signed to start on the 15/1/07.

The father states that social services will be arranging carer within 4 wks but cannot specify a date to move in within that 4 weeks. He has made sure an application for a social fund loan for furniture has gone through for his son but no decision has been made on this yet.

The dad states that when the carer is available they will not wait for the social fund loan to move him in, and will help him themselves, as the property is currently bare.

So….. can i pay for the 4 weeks prior to him moving in if i dont know the exact moving in date but anticipate it will be within 4 weeks?

Or, must i get a date to move in before processing the claim? social services cannot confirm a date at this time so this is not the customers fault.

in the unlikly circumstance i process and he doesnt move in for more than 4 weeks, can i just create an overpayment for the period that exceeded? I have asked numerous wok mates and checked J zebedee but it doesnt seem to state what to do in this circumstance.

Please help!

[/b]

[Anonymous]

You can’t do anything about benefit prior to occupation until he does actually move in.

[Kevin D]

I agree with Andy. HBR 7(8 )(a) starts with the wording:

“Where a person-
[b:df5e703faf]has moved[/b:df5e703faf] into a dwelling…… ”

The [b:df5e703faf]bold[/b:df5e703faf] is my emphasis. So, until occupancy has occurred, zip HB.

[MissMoody]

short and sweet! thats great, thank you thats just the answer i wanted

thanks again

[Anonymous]

[quote:f09192fa82]short and sweet[/quote:f09192fa82]

OK then, who’s short and who’s sweet? 😀

[Neil Adamson]

Just out of interest can you pay benefit prior to occupation in this case?

Whilst I appreciate the loan has been applied for it seems it is the absence of a carer that is preventing occupation. If the claimant has said they will move in once a carer is found even if the loan has not been paid then occupation is not being delayed due to them waiting for the outcome of the loan?

Or am I being harsh?

[GHE]

i think the regs say pending the outcome of the application, rather than whether the application is successful or not. Ffrom this then it could be taken that it doesn’t matter if the application is successful or not.

[Kevin D]

Neil,

Actually, that’s a really good spot – I’d totally overlooked that rather important point. And, I agree with you.

Yes it is harsh, but as you spotted, the delay is clearly due to the lack of a carer and, that delay is NOT caused by the Social Fund application (the clmt’s father says clmt will be moved in irrespective of whether the SF has been dealt with). Therefore, no HB for the period prior to moving in.

Regards

[Anonymous]

I think you are both being cruel and wicked. Provided the move was completed either before the Social Fund decision or within a reasonable time after the decision, I would turn a blind eye to the father’s statement and award the benefit prior to occupation.

[Neil Adamson]

In my defence I am a Liverpool supporter and as you can imagine I had a very very bad day!

[Anonymous]

Being in Plymouth I would’ve thought you fall into the Manchester United catchment area…

[Neil Adamson]

No but my wife is!

[Kevin D]

In my defence, it is the law. 😈

[Neil Adamson]

Indeed it is and despite the nature of my bad day yesterday I would still say the same today (as would our auditor I am guessing!).

[Anonymous]

Kevin – notwithstanding the father’s comments, I think it could be argued that the application for the Social Fund loan has [i:1f7387d720]contributed[/i:1f7387d720] to the delay, thereby satisfying the requirements of Reg 7(8)(c)(iii).

And even if that argument is unsustainable, I would still pay it, safe in the knowledge that the auditor would be extremely unlikely to spot it, and even if he/she did, they would most likely be persuaded due to the fact that most auditors have a somewhat limited understanding of the legislation.

[Author]

Posts