Should underlying entitlement be calculated?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #38808


    We have a customer who was claiming HB for a room in a property before he was given a Council tenancy and made a claim at his new address which we calculated and awarded.

    A year later we are contacted by the customer who states he has moved back to the room he was renting. We investigated the case and discovered that our customer had not been living in the Council property but had sub let it without the authorities permission. We have ended his council tenancy claim from the start as we have statements confirming he was never resident.

    Is there a case for any underlying entitlement to be calculated? Possibly at the old address? He states he only moved back to the rented room recently, although the landlord states he has been there continuously for 7 years.

    We have considered paying benefit to the sub-tenant, however, we believe the sub-tenant is the claimants son and therefore would not consider it to be on a commercial basis.

    Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.

    Kevin D

    {Edited – see below}

    Hi Steph,

    This is tricky. I’m assuming the award in respect of the CT “claim” was withdrawn on the grounds that s.130 and HBR 7(1) were not fulfilled (i.e. occupancy).

    I note the reference to there being a “claim” when the clmt was thought to have moved from prop “A” to prop “B”. However, presumably this was, in law, simply a change of circs; not a new claim?

    The decision also implies that, as far as the LA is concerned, the FACT is that the clmt did not move at all. If so, HBR 104A cannot apply because that relies on there being a change of address.

    So, can ULE apply under HBR 104? Well, I don’t think it ever gets that far.

    All that needs to be done is to reassess the ACTUAL award for the period concerned on the basis of the true facts; i.e. based on where he is actually living. I don’t think this is a case where the award should have been terminated; presumably there was (and still is?) entitlement at prop “A”.

    In short, albeit without seeing the papers, this seems to be a case where the “change of address” decision (for moving from A to B) needs to be revised.

    {Edit}: DAR 4(2)(b) applies. A revision only occurs if it decreases HB (i.e. if HB at prop A is lower than prop B). If HB at prop A would have been higher, no revision – the clmt just gets the level of HB paid in respect of Prop B). The latter means a superseding decision would then be needed to increase HB from when the LA became aware of the true facts.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.