Terms & Conditions

[andrew_hodkinson]

Hello everyone
Just thought I would share a case with you all which I have recently [color=darkred:3c4365b060]requested leave to appeal [/color:3c4365b060]on.

To cut a long story short the appellant was living with her partner who had owned the house previous to starting a relationship with her. On the relationship ending, he left and advised the appelant she could remain in the property so long as she paid him rent. She continued to live there and pay rent from an inheritence she had received. However, her money has now dreid up and she has made a claim for HB, which was refused under the above.

I spoke with the appellents representative who informed me that following the relationship breakdown, the appellent moved her ex-husband (not the ex-partner) in with her for 3-4 weeks to try and make a go of things. Unfortunately, this did not happen and she was left on her own again.

At tribunal I argued the above but sought clarification on whether ‘his former partner’ meant the most recent former partner or (what I assumed the policy intention was) ‘a former partner’. [color=darkred:3c4365b060]The appeal was allowed.[/color:3c4365b060]

Has anyone had a similar case?

[Kevin D]

According to [b:94e3da3210]HB/CTB G11/2006[/b:94e3da3210], the issue of “former partner” was being considered in [b:94e3da3210]CH/2207/2006[/b:94e3da3210].

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/news/newsletter/bulletins/2006/g11-2006.pdf

So, either the decision has been made and the Tribunal are aware of the outcome, or an appeal should be made to Cmmrs in the normal time limits. I wouldn’t wait to see if CH/2207/2006 has been decided as you may end up falling foul of time limits etc. NB: I simply don’t know if the CD has been decided.

Regards

[andrew_hodkinson]

Thanks Kevin, I had’nt seen that.

[Kevin D]

*bump*

CH/2207/2006 has now been released:

new.hbinfo.org.com/comdecs/ch_2207_2006.doc

Two main points of the Cmmr’s findings are summarised as follows:

1) “[b:7a09061468]former partner[/b:7a09061468]” includes ALL former partners (para 12)

2) “[b:7a09061468]dwelling[/b:7a09061468]”: “Painter” was followed. It is sufficient for the present dwelling to have been part of dwelling formerly occ with former ptnr for HBR 9(1)(c) to have effect. So, in simple terms, if they both previously occupied a whole property, but the clmt now only occupies one room, the clmt is still caught by HBR 9(1)(c).

Regards

[Author]

Posts