Terms & Conditions

[jomckeigue]

We first received a claim in July 06 for a new tenancy on a property. The tenant had not claimed previously so is a new claim. When she completed the claim form she had not moved in and stated that she was waiting to receive a social fund loan to buy furniture. She has now received the social fund loan. At the time of applying she was receiving medical care due to mental health problems and has also been an in patient for this. She then completed a new claim form in early dec to say that she moved in 08.11.06. From this date she is gradually increasing her length of stay there with support from mental health team. She is over 60 and receiving PC Guaranteed.
Our question is if we can pay from the beginning of the tenancy based on either her having a rental liability and being over 60 or on a temp absence basis based on her intending to live there but not being able to physically move in due to being in hospital. I am sure there is a decison somewhere based on that but can’t remember which one it is and not sure if it does apply here. Can anyone help please.

[Kevin D]

A couple questions or so.

1) Where was the clmt living / staying before her move?

2) Was the clmt liable to make payments for the previous address?

3) Was there any overlapping [u:d949ed1398]liability[/u:d949ed1398] (distinguished from HB)?

[jomckeigue]

1. Previously she was living in a mental health care home which is where she has been until she moved into this property.

2. As far as we know she was not claiming at this property.

3. We don’t thisnk there was an overlapping liabilty as she was not liable to pay rent.

Thanks

[Kevin D]

In my view, temporary absence can only be considered where occupancy has already occurred.

If that is correct, the only option available is 4 weeks max under [b:5234c6f977]HBR 7(8 )[/b:5234c6f977].

Regards

[Mark]

I suspect the decision you’re think of is CH/2957/2004 (reported as R(H)9/05). This (broadly) established 2 things:

A claimant can be treated as occupying the new property as their home even before they physically moved into it, provided that someone moved their belongings in for them and they had no-where else that could be considered their normal home.

The temporary absence rule can apply before occupancy has physically occurred – because the claimant can still have an “intention to return” once occupancy occured through their agents (i.e. the people who moved their stuff in for them).

This all sounds pretty similar to your case so these same principles may well apply.

[Kevin D]

I’m not sure the situation is the same.

In the original post, there was no suggestion that belongings were moved in. Certainly no furniture – the purchase of furniture was subject to the outcome of an application for a loan from the Social Fund.

So, based on the info so far, I don’t see how the clmt could be regarded as having occupied the property.

Regards

[Mark]

I also don’t know whether the situation is the same – but it sounds damn close to me. I think the furniture/social fund issue is a red herring. She presumably had some other belongings, and however few they may be, if she (or someone on her behalf) moved them into this new home and had nowhere else other than the hospital (or wherever she was an inpatient) to live in, then CH/2957/2004 could fit like a glove.

Even if she hadn’t moved any of her stuff in at the commencement of the tenancy, she may have done so later down the line and before she physically moved in, so CH/2957/2004 could kick in at that point too.

[Author]

Posts