In the case that you had last week (woman who stayed with her mum for three months after LA tenancy started) the claimant won her appeal by convincing the Tribunal that the new place was her normal home because it was a more convincing candidate than the temporary roof her mother was providing. CH/2957/2004 oiled the wheels.
This case is different, because if the claimant is going to rely on CH/2957/2004 to argue that he has already started occupying the the new home, he faces the additional problem of arguing that he has already moved out of the place where he is still living. There are two candidates for the job of normal home here, and the new place faces very stiff competition from the old one during the four weeks leading up to 15 October. I think you have to say he did not move until then.
From 8 January the door has been well and truly bolted by an amendment to Reg 7(6)(d) which makes it clear that the overlap in a two-homes case must fall after the date of the move. Until then, there is a chink of light: if you feel inclined to help this claimant, you could rely on the somewhat eccentric decision of Deputy Commissioner Agnew in CSHB/873/2005 where he decided that the overlap can fall before the date of the move. We have discussed that case on here several times and I think we have conclusively proved that it was based on a typing error in the source material (the Reg 5(5) of the 1987 Regs). The case is weakened even further by the absence of any such error from the 2006 Regs in the usual publications. Your claimant’s overlap occurred in the lifetime of the 2006 Regs and Agnew’s decision is very hard to defend when applied to those Regs.
A pity, as I get the impression you wanted to help this chap in the light of the good fortune enjoyed by last week’s claimant.
.
