LHA pathfinders – phased introduction

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22846
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Is anyone working on a pathfinder site where LHA has been phased in (as opposed to “big bang”)? If so, can you point me to the legal provision for phasing as I am struggling to see it. All I can find are dates that seem to apply big bang-style. What am I missing?

    Thanks

    #9837
    andyrichards
    Participant

    Well I’m stumped. I cannot find anything which treats the Schedule 10 Part 1 LA’s as anything than one single entity. Admittedly my LA is a “big banger” ( 😯 ), but I do not know if a phased LA person could shed more light?

    #9838
    gerryg
    Participant

    I may have got this totally wrong bearing in mind I have never worked for an authority doing LHA but I’ll give it a shot.

    Reg 6 SI 2003/2399

    [quote:de9c64ea5b](1) Subject to paragraph (2), where –

    (a) the relevant authority is a pathfinder authority specified in Part I of Schedule 8 and it is the commencement date for that pathfinder authority; or

    (b) a pathfinder authority has received –

    (i) a claim on which a rent allowance may be awarded, where the date of claim falls [b:de9c64ea5b]on or after the commencement [/b:de9c64ea5b]date;

    (ii) relevant information regarding a claim on which a rent allowance may be awarded, where the date of claim falls [b:de9c64ea5b]on or after the commencement[/b:de9c64ea5b] date;

    (iii) in relation to an award of housing benefit where the maximum rent was determined in accordance with regulation 11, a notification of a change relating to a rent allowance where the change occurs [b:de9c64ea5b]on or after the commencement date[/b:de9c64ea5b]; or

    (iv) in relation to an award of housing benefit where a maximum rent (standard local rate) was determined in accordance with this regulation –

    (aa) notification of a change of a kind which affects the category of dwelling applicable to the claim;

    (bb) notification of the death of an occupier of the dwelling to whom any of sub-paragraphs (b) to (d) of regulation 10(3H) applies, where the notification does not fall within sub-head (aa); or

    (cc) notification that there has been a rent increase under a term of the tenancy to which the claim relates and the term under which that increase was made was either included in the tenancy at the date of the claim or is a term substantially the same as such a term,

    the pathfinder authority shall determine a maximum rent (standard local rate) in accordance with paragraphs (3) to (8).

    [/quote:de9c64ea5b]

    Is that it?

    Apologies if I am barking up the wrong tree.

    If I am right, what a way to bring up the 250!

    #9839
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Thanks Gerry.

    I wondered whether it was written into those rules, but I couldn’t see how subpara (1)(a) doesn’t apply to every council.

    In case anyone is thinking this is a bit obscure, I am trying to make sure that a bit of software gets these cases 100% right.

    Thanks for your comments so far.

    #9840
    andyrichards
    Participant

    I had seen that too but ruled it out because it did not distinguish different councils, but it looks like the regs actually gave the pathfinders the choice of which road to go down.

    #9841
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Well gents, if i assume there’s a choice built into para (1) it looks as if I will be in distinguished company. So I think that’s what we will go with!

    Thanks again

    #9842
    gerryg
    Participant

    Well para 1a does end with the word “or” so it surely does give a choice
    😀

    #9843
    Bev Connor
    Participant

    We were one of the Second Wave authorities to implement LHA and we decided to go big bang although we were given the choice.

    My understanding of the situation for national roll-out of LHA is that it will only initially apply to new claims and change of address claims and it will apply to all of those claims from a certain date (which is still to be decided) so there will be no requirement to opt for a phased approach. The regulations will need to be amended to reflect this prior to national roll-out.

    #9844
    Mark
    Participant

    I think Peter has uncovered an error in the consolidation exercise.

    If my hunch is right, Peter knows that except for the changes to the Decision and Appeal Regulations contained in Reg 16 of SI2003/2399 – that this SI was revoked by the Consequential Provisions.

    So whilst Gerry is reading the Pathfinder rules in the “old place”, Peter’s reading them in the new place (i.e. Sch 10 to the HB Regs 2006).

    But there’s something not quite right here. In the “old place (i.e. SI2003/2399) Schedule 8 was split into Parts I and II where part I contained the “big bang” authorities (Brighton and Hove, Edinburgh and North East Linconshire) and Part II contained the rest. So if you read the “old regs” para 1(a) that you’re all referring to didn’t apply to every council – just the three in Part I.

    But Sch 10 of the new 2006 regs has parts I and II written very differently. Part I now contains ALL the pathfinder authorities and part II the rest of the blurb. But the transposed para 1(a) [prev of 11A now 13A] still applies to list of authorities in Part I – but this list now fails to seperate the big bang ones from the phased ones.

    Conclusion: Peter can’t find the distinction because they accidentally removed it.

    Whaddya reckon? Quite happy to be told I’m talking twaddle.

    #9845
    gerryg
    Participant

    I see what you mean now Mark.

    Is my understanding correct though in that para 1(a) allows big bang and 1(b) allows for phasing? The fact that they are no longer separated in the list really allows them to do it as they please?

    #9846
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Mark, you are as sharp-eyed as ever. I’m afraid you are giving me too much credit. All that happened was I didn’t read the old Reg 11A(1)(a) properly and I missed the important fact that it only applied to authorities in Part I of the Schedule.

    I would guess that the reason why the table is not split in the new Regs is that all authorities still taking part in LHA by March 2006 were either fully phased in by then or banging it big. Reg 13A(1)(a) is there because it was copied and pasted out of Reg 11A(1)(a) I’d guess – doesn’t really do any harm since the date referred to therin falls before March 2006 in every case.

    But you have nailed the original phasing provision for me, thank you very much!!! It just goes to show you should read every single letter of every single word in these Regs

    #9847
    Mark
    Participant

    Gerry – that was certainly how it was written originally. But I think Peter is right that it doesn’t matter anymore. Everyone is covered under 13A(1)(a) now anyway. As far as I can tell the last of the phased authorities went live on 9th Feb 04. So all the cases in those authorities must have been converted to LHA before March 06 came around – unless they forgot to do their 52 week rent officer re-referrals on the relevant cases at the right time.

    #9848
    andyrichards
    Participant

    “Banging it big”……?

    I’ve always said Brighton and Hove City Council needed a good motto, and I think you’ve come up with a cracker there.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.