LHA and advantageous changes

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #94466
    cbuck
    Participant

    Para 4(4A) was inserted into schedule 7 to the CSPSSA by the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (30(3)).

    [quote:d068f01560](4A)Regulations may prescribe the cases and circumstances in which, and the procedure by which, a decision relating to housing benefit must be made by the appropriate relevant authority[/quote:d068f01560]

    Hope this helps

    #94467
    Anonymous
    Guest

    That subparagraph has been added by s31(3) of the Welfare Reform Act 2007.

    It says:

    “(4A) Regulations may prescribe the cases and circumstances in which, and the procedure by which, a decision relating to housing benefit must be made by the appropriate relevant authority”

    I read it as meaning, for the avoidance of doubt, that there can be cases where the LA is obliged to make a superseding decision, in case anyone was inclined to think that the existing subpara (4) left things entirely to the discretion of the LA.

    Unfortunately, I think it might have the opposite effect in respect of CTB – it now looks, by way of contrast with HB, as if there is no power to precribe compulsory supersession in a CTB case!

    #94468
    Andrew Plant
    Participant

    Thanks you both for that.

    I am going to take time out to mull this over because I have now confused myself even more.

    The question that has now risen in my mind is does the date used at 8(15) create problems, dependent on your interpretation, whether the change is late beneficial, late advantageous or on time. :15:

    #94469
    janish
    Participant

    If the changes to 8(15) in the new consultation SI go ahead then the one month time limit will apply to changes in the LHA category if a non-dep moves in. ( Say 1 bedroom up to 2 bedrooms).

    Do you intend to change that from the Monday following the date of notification, but add the deduction from the Mon foll the date they actually moved in?

    #94470
    cbuck
    Participant

    I have always taken the view that where one thing changes which has two effects it is the [i:6a7a36d5a1]overall [/i:6a7a36d5a1]effect that should be considered.

    So a new baby will increase appl amt but increase income (child benefit). Taken together the changes will result in a higher entitlement so I would apply both factors (AA and income) from the Monday following notification. If you went back with the income you would have to reduce the OP to nil by applying 104 anyway.

    I know not everyone takes the same approach though!

    The intention with the new look regs seems to be to align the determination of a new max rent (LHA) with the real change of circs. This would be consistent with the approach above as there is no explicit provision in DAR 7/8 for applying a new max rent following a change of circs.

    #48199
    Andrew Plant
    Participant

    Janish

    Please could you tell me where the new consultation SI available from?

    Thanks

    #94471
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I think there is only one change to consider Janis: the only thing differet about the claimant’s life is that a non-dep has arrived. That single change affects the assessment in two ways, and both of these need to be considered before you can say whether the change is advantageous or not. If the NDD exceeds the extra eligible rent, it’s a non-advantageous change and the consequence of any delay in reporting it will be a recoverable overpayment. If it’s the other way round, it’s an advantgeous change and the consequence of a delay in reporting it is that the claimant misses out on arrears.

    #94472
    janish
    Participant

    thanks Peter

    Andrew, the SI is on the thread D & A Regs 7A(2) & 8(15), here
    http://hbinfo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11912

    #94473
    Andrew Plant
    Participant

    Thanks Janis..

    #94474
    Anonymous
    Guest

    [b:14158339dc]I think there is only one change to consider Janis: the only thing differet about the claimant’s life is that a non-dep has arrived. That single change affects the assessment in two ways, and both of these need to be considered before you can say whether the change is advantageous or not. If the NDD exceeds the extra eligible rent, it’s a non-advantageous change and the consequence of any delay in reporting it will be a recoverable overpayment. If it’s the other way round, it’s an advantgeous change and the consequence of a delay in reporting it is that the claimant misses out on arrears.[/b:14158339dc]

    But both changes have to be calculated separately, which is where underlying entitlement comes in!

    #94475
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Following my last post I became quite vexed with the same issues and decided to look back at the legislation to see where it actually requires us to do 2 separate assessments in cases like this, other than that is the line the DWP have been spinning since 2001. Guess what? It doesn’t. It actually talks about a superseding decision following notification of a change. A non-dep moving in is one change isn’t it? This has 2 effects in different parts of the assessment but only one outcome (the decision), either up or down.
    So I now agree with Peter!

    #94476
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Just following on from this discussion, I am expecting more than a few previously undeclared non-dependants to emerge where there is a break in claim followed by a new claim or when an existing tenant moves address, both of which would give a positive incentive for their declaration in terms of a bigger LHA, especially since LHAs will be in the public domain. If we are faced with retrospective calculations for such undeclared non-deps in private tenant claims for periods prior to April then presumably we must refer the case back to the Rent Officer to obtain a revised retrospective Claim Related Rent and LRR as any increase will be part of the underlying entitlement used to offset the introduction retrospectively of a non-dep deduction.Any views?

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.