Taking advantage of the scheme?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #22640

    I have just picked up an appeal of a collegue who is on holiday. She has turned down the rent allowance as the tenant could have avoided such a liability and been adequately accommodated. The claimant is in receipt of DLA care and mobility – high rate. She previously lived with her mother in her mothers own property as a non dep. They have now moved to a privately rented property with the daughter as tenant and the mother as non dep – no non dep deduction. The mother is her appointee. The mother now intends to sell her own property. The mother – on her daughters behalf has appealed the decision stating that she wanted security for her daughter – she has a six month assured short hold tenancy and that there were abusive neighbours. She stated that she also needed an extra room for carers to stay. There is no specific section in reg 7/9 but in A1/99 the introcuction at paragraph 1 says – abuse of the scheme “this arises where the liability either creates or incresases the claimant’s entilement to HB, when he would have been adequately accommodataed withouth any liability” Any offers ❓


    is this not making clever use of loopholes?

    how can you prove it was done with the sole intention to claim hb, the intentions of the mother (non-dep) surely have no bearing on the daughter’s right to claim HB? If their association can be shown to be other than for claiming HB (which it clearly can) I doubt you could refuse such a claim.

    If this could successfully be applied then we’d surely be turning down every change of address that involved a rent increase?

    or am I missing something? 🙄


    I think I am with Accura on this but……

    The mother is the claimant’s appointee – why is your claimant unable to act for herself and does this inability to act extend to her ability to enter into a tenancy agreement? If so [u:d2aa8ae728][b:d2aa8ae728]and[/b:d2aa8ae728][/u:d2aa8ae728] it is the mother who has orchestrated the tenancy then I do think you have a strong case that the liability was created to take advantage of the scheme.

    Also, are your sure it is a wise decision having the mother as an appointee in circumstance like this?

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.