Reg 13D(5)

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #33997

    I am blaming the new year excess for my fuddled state of mind, although this excuse is staring to wear thin. I cannot figure out what this actually means. Any help?

    [quote:7165661eee] (5) Where the applicable local housing allowance exceeds the cap rent, for the purpose of determining the appropriate maximum housing benefit, the amount of the claimant’s liability shall be the amount of the applicable local housing allowance.[/quote:7165661eee]

    OK, applicable LHA = £80pw.
    Cap rent = amount charged (incl services etc) = £60pw.
    So para 5 applies.
    Liability = applicable LHA
    £60 = £80??

    This appears to be saying that black = white. If, as it seems, it is deeming one of the factual figures to be the same as the other factual figure, which one changes, and why?

    If we read it mean the claimant’s liability is treated as being the same as the applicable LHA we are deeming their liability to be £80, even when we know it’s only £60.

    “Appropriate maximum housing benefit” doesn’t seem to have a swanky new LHA meaning so I guess it still relates to HBR 70.

    [quote:7165661eee]70. The amount of a person’s appropriate maximum housing benefit in any week shall be 100 per cent. of his eligible rent calculated on a weekly basis in accordance with regulations 80 and 81 (calculation of weekly amounts and rent free periods) less any deductions in respect of non-dependants which fall to be made under regulation 74 (non-dependant deductions).[/quote:7165661eee]

    This is the new definition from the LHA SI 2868/07 and the £80 figure doesn’t seem to slot in here very nicely at all. It still wants an eligible rent figure, which is maximum rent (LHA), which has no direct connection to the liability/ applicable LHA shenanigans above.

    Can I just ignore it and move onto worrying about something more important?


    You are right, para (5) seems to casually introduce vague terminology that does not fit into the carefully constructed edifice of eligible rent, maximum rent (LHA) and appropriate max HB. On closer inspection, I wonder whether para (5) is actually needed at all. The same effect would have been achieved by saying:

    (4) The relevant authority shall determine the cap rent in accordance with the definition in paragraph (12)

    (5) [deleted].

    (6) The maximum rent (LHA) shall be the lower of—

    (a) the applicable local housing allowance determined in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) above; or

    (b) the amount equal to the cap rent determined in accordance with paragraph (4) plus £15.[/quote:1efc374081]

    That would do the job just as well wouldn’t it?[/i]


    Hence my concern that there must be some deep hidden meaning that I just could not find. You have put my mind at rest, thank you Peter.

    Now, payment on two homes… 😉


    Regulation 13D(5) caused me a bit of a headache too, and I would have been happier if Peter Barker had drafted that part of the legislation! (If not all of the legislation)

    However, since he didn’t I have tended to take the view as expressed in this thread, [i:15ab7dccd7]but[/i:15ab7dccd7] Regulation 13D(6) (which in my opinion is one of the best constructed and most straight forward parts of the new regulations) is subject to paragraph 5.

    So para 4 requires the determination of the cap rent and whether this exceeds the “applicable local housing allowance”. We assume that the applicable local housing allowance is that which applies to the correct category of dwelling upon the relevant date – the “Standard Local Rate” as the Pathfinders knew it.

    Para 5 seems to mean that when the applicable LHA is greater than the cap rent then the liability will be treated as being the applicable LHA.

    Para 6 then goes onto prescribe how the maximum rent (LHA) is determined when para 5 applies.

    What happens when para 5 does not apply as the cap rent is greater than the applicable LHA?

    (I know I should use the applicable LHA, but the construction of the regulation only appears – to me at least – to cover cases where para 5 applies)


    Fortunately, the default position is set out in para 1 i.e. that the maximum rent (LHA) is the relevant LHA amount.

    My own observation is that the terms of the test required by paragraph 4(b) and of the condition set in paragraph 5 are reversed, which also seems illogical.

    I would suppose that the remainder of paragraph 5 must (?) have been inserted for a reason, though its far from clear what this may be, otherwise 5 and 6 could certainly be combined at the very least.

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