Non-dependant Temporary Residence

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #23386
    R Southall

    Claimant advises her daughter and her family would be resident with her from 19/10/06 for a “couple of weeks” as she had sold her property & the new property required “alterations”.

    A non-dep. deduction wasn’t initially taken as the daughter didn’t normally reside with her mother and had an alternative address.

    An Intervention was subsequently carried out 21/11/06, the daughter was still resident, the claimant was therefore contacted and has advised she expects them to leave 2nd week of January’07.

    I understand a similar issue has been raised on an earlier post but anyone’s opinion would be appreciated. I am inclined to now apply a deduction due to the length of the stay but as the daughter has an alternative address could it be argued this is her normal address?

    Darren W

    I would tend to agree with you and take a deduction from the start of the claim. She said at the start it would be for “a couple of weeks”. You took this in good faith and did not take a deduction. She failed to notify you that this initial couple (which by defenition is 2) week period was extended.

    I would also assume that the daughter must have items of clothing etc at her mums house and spends every night there. So I would argue that even though she may have another address, she normally resides with her mother.

    Your case would also be strenghtend if the mother included her on the intervention without prompting. If so then even the mother would see the daughter as part of her household.


    I dont agree that the deduction should be taken because the length of stay is not the only factor to be taken into account. The inentions of the parties remain relevant (CIS/14850/1996, CSIS/100/1991)

    The burden will be on the Council to prove grounds for revison/supersession, if it wishes to change the original decision It will have to show precisleywhen the change of circumstances took place, or altentively show that the claimant misrepresented a material fact at the outset.

    The distinction between primary and secondary facts needs to be heeded (see R((S)4/86). The Council will be very hard pushed to show that any primary facts were misrepresented.

    I dont think the mere fact that the claimant said initially that the “non dep” was going to stay only a couple of weeks is sufficient to show a misrepresentation of a material fact. There are a number of areas, temporary absence, or disregard of capital for example where this is illustrated (see for example R(IS)20/93 where the burden of proof that capital should no longer be disregarded was held to rest with the adjudication officer))

    Of course relationships can change over time, and there is caselaw in the context of living together as husabnd and wife that may be helpful (see for example CP/8001/1995), but as that case showed the grounds for supersession have to be considered very carefully, and are difficult to prove.

    A non dependant is by definition not part of a claimants household. The test is whether or not a person normally resides with the claimant. That test is explained in CIS/14850/1996


    I think I would be inclined to agree with Stainsby unless the property was granted an exemption from council tax (uninhabitable due to works or vacant ie empty & unfurnished)

    Kevin D

    What were the reasons for the extra delay (i.e. on top of the original two weeks) in moving to the new property?

    If it was due to more work being required than originally expected, I’d be inclined to agree with both Stainsby and David in this instance. But, if it was just that the non-dep fancied staying with her mother, then the crux is whether it was just an extended holiday of sorts, or if the arrangement was more permanent in nature, albeit short term.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.