Overlapping rents

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
  • #23194

    Hi. A claimant moves from one HA property to another. Her tenancy starts on the 18/09/06 and she moves in on 22/09/06 (the same benfit week).

    Benefit has been awarded from the 22/09/06 at the new property and ended on the 21/09/06 at the old.

    Her tenancy at the old property ended on the 16/10/06.

    The customer tenancy started at the new property within 4 days after being offered the keys. She was offered the property on the 14/09/06.

    Is this a case where benefit on 2 homes could be paid?


    All landlords, including LA’s want to minimise their voids and will not hold onto an empty property unless they have to.

    This means that prospective tenants may have to take up the offer ofthe tenancy straight away or risk loossing it to someone else. A dual liability will often be unavoidable so benefit on 2 homes can and should be awarded


    If the old address and the new address are different Housong Associations, I would say yes you can award on both addresses as there it is reasonable that she has a rental liability on both. As it is near impossible to get a Housing Association to waive a notice period, and she had moved into the new address, i would be happy that liability to pay rent on both properties is unavoidable and pay HB accordingly

    However, if it is the same Housing Association, then no i would not pay, it is unreasonable for theHousing Association to move their tenant into a property and then insist they pay rent at the new address and still want them to pay for the notice period.


    The claimant, in this case moved from one Housing Association to another and is also 80yrs old and receiving Attendance Allowance. Obviously moving in her case is made more difficult because of this.


    Now that you’ve clarified the position regarding the HA issue, I would agree that you can pay the period of overlap as long as the tenant has moved into the new one and not remained at the previous address.

    If there were adaptations to be carried out then it is possible that you could pay on both properties even if the tenant remained in the old home.

    Reg 7 (6) (d) & (e) of the HB (SPC) Regs apply to this.

    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................


    Thanks to all who replied. Looks like both should be paid.


    Hi, sorry for re-opening this but we have now spoke to the Authority and they’ve agreed that benefit on 2 homes is payable from the date she moved into the new property (22/09/06).

    I was wondering if there was any way that benefit was payable from the start of the tenancy of the 2nd property (18/09/06).

    She had moved some of her furniture on the monday and her grandson was staying over-night at the property whilst it was being decoarated.

    Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

    Kevin D

    Based on the facts given, my view is that 2 homes can only be given for 18 Sep to 21 Sep if the delay in moving was due to adaptations being required for the disablement needs of the clmt (or member of family).

    [b:80d629c5e9]HBR 7(6)([u:80d629c5e9]e[/u:80d629c5e9])[/b:80d629c5e9] applies.

    In this instance, the moving of furniture into the second home won’t be enough to count as occupation – she was clearly still occupying the first home.

    Decorating does not count as adaptations for disablement purposes (confirmed in [b:80d629c5e9]CSH/0149/2006[/b:80d629c5e9]).

    Occupation by the grandson is also not enough. It must be by the clmt (see [b:80d629c5e9]CH/1911/2006[/b:80d629c5e9] paras 13-16).



    I would say have a very close read of Reg 61(4). Your first task is to decide whether subpara (b) or (c) applies; I think in this case it is (b) because of the overlap that applies from 22 September onwards, so (c)(ii)(bb) would rule out (c). Having established that, I think para (4)(b) means anything you want it to mean and personally I do not think it prevents you from aggregating all of the rent due for both properties in the week beginning 18 September. What is “the appropriate number of days”? Arguably para (4)(b) has the effect that you do not need to worry about benefit before moving in or two homes overlaps on any days falling within that single benefit week – as long as you don’t stray outside the week, HB is based on the total summed liability on both old and new properties and it does not matter precisely which day of the week you move on. I defy anyone to make better sense of it than that.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.