two homes benefit – is reg7(6) exhaustive?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22864
    emmadring
    Participant

    Does reg.7(6) provide the only situations in which benefit may be paid on two homes?
    My reading of the reg is that it does, and I have located CH 2201/2002 which also states that it does. But someone here has suggested that where reg.7(8 applies (paying HB where delays in moving in) then we can also pay on two homes. the other source which states this is [size=9:e328ddb7f6]Zebedee[/size:e328ddb7f6] 😕

    Can someone set me straight on this – I was sure that I had it right but after dealing with two appeals on the question within a week I am doubting myself! Would like to hear from anyone who has a different understanding.

    #9949
    Anonymous
    Guest

    7(6) is exhautive, though part (e) of it does refer to part (c)(i) of paragraph (eight) [the codes for emoticons on this thing are very annoying] and allows HB on two homes to be paid before occupation of the new home where they’re waiting for the property to be adapted to meet their disablement needs.

    The other conditions in paragraph (eight) don’t allow HB on two homes though (only before occupation when they have no other rent liability), so for example not if they’re waiting for a social fund payment application. This is harsh on people moving from furnished to unfurnished social housing because the housing association will often start charging rent even though the place has no furniture, carpets, curtains or fridge. A commissioner commented on the unfairness of this some time ago but the government have taken no steps to do anything about.

    #9950
    Bobkirkpatrick
    Participant

    Excuse me – it’s not just housing associations that start tenancies “early” and before tenants have had a chance to buy furniture etc. – it’s local authorities as well.

    #9951
    emmadring
    Participant

    Thanks for that. I agree this area of the law really seems very unfair, and what is worse it seems very abitrary, probably a case of poor drafting and a failure to consider the consequences of the wording rather than a deliberate policy intention. Although I may be wrong on that!

    #9952
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Emma,

    Firstly, I agree with edhorn’s analysis of HBR 7(6).

    Next, the wording of the provisions of HBR 7(6) are such that, in my view, the current provisions are exactly what is intended. Reasoning behind that analysis goes as follows:

    1) HBR 7(6)(d) was amended a few years ago to strengthen the “unavoidable” part.

    2) HBR 7(7) was added relatively recently – but not for 2-homes.

    Given the above, it would appear that the Government of the day (covering both Tory & Labour eras) has had ample opportunity to make further amendments, but has pro-actively decided not to. If that is so, it seems reasonable to conclude that the DWP / government are satisfied that HBR 7(6) provides what is currently intended.

    Also, some of the CDs on 2-homes analyse the provisions in such a way that, arguably, support a view that the current provisions are intended. There are a few CDs in the case law section on this site. Via the link below, the brief description for the CDs include the phrase “2 homes”:

    new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2a/cdoccupancy/cdoccupancy.htm

    Regards

    Regards

    #9953
    Anonymous
    Guest

    The fact that they haven’t amended it does indicate they are happy with it how it is. I don’t really understand why though as it does create problems for claimants. The last thing you need when you’ve just moved into your new home is your landlord threatening to evict you for rent arrears you can’t possibly pay.

    And sorry for singling out housing associations, you’re quite right that local authorities are equally guilty of the “force them to sign up asap” policy, but it was a Friday afternoon and I was feeling irritable :oops:. I do tend to find that our housing dept are less reluctant than some HAs to write off the rent for the period though.

    #9954
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I’ve got round this now by awarding a DHP to cover the “overlapping” period. Can’t see anything in DHP regs that makes them property specific. Watch this space!

    #9955
    lesleyb
    Participant

    Not picking on HA’s – but there are some in my area who take the customer to see the house one day and give them a date of entry the next day – now that’s unreasonable.

    #9956
    kareena2b
    Participant

    Surely a DHP is to top up an excisting award of HB & not something you can offer someone who has no HB entitlement?
    You can always tell claimants to move into their new home & so long as the property they are moving into is from a Social Landlord-then they can claim upto 4 weeks of unavoidable liability for the old property-but why should HB cover a leisurely move?? For those vunerable & waiting to get a Social Fund loan to purchase necessary furniture & white goods benefit of 2 homes is allowed.

    #9957
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Some observations:

    [quote:f45c7d150d]Surely a DHP is to top up an excisting award of HB & not something you can offer someone who has no HB entitlement? [/quote:f45c7d150d]
    Based on the info given, there will in fact be entitlement – but probably only on one home. Therefore, a DHP can be considered. Whether it should be awarded is entirely another matter.

    [quote:f45c7d150d]You can always tell claimants to move into their new home & so long as the property they are moving into is from a Social Landlord-then they can claim upto 4 weeks of unavoidable liability for the old property-[/quote:f45c7d150d]
    This provision, presumably this is referring to [b:f45c7d150d]HBR 7(6)(d)[/b:f45c7d150d], applies irrespective of the status of the landlord – it doesn’t necessarily have to be a Social Landlord.

    [quote:f45c7d150d]For those vunerable & waiting to get a Social Fund loan to purchase necessary furniture & white goods benefit of 2 homes is allowed.[/quote:f45c7d150d]
    This is incorrect.

    Social Fund payments are only relevant in cases where there is [u:f45c7d150d][b:f45c7d150d]single[/b:f45c7d150d][/u:f45c7d150d] liability AND where the clmt has moved in late.

    Where a clmt moves into the second home late, and there is dual liability, HB can only be paid under HBR 7(6)[u:f45c7d150d](e)[/u:f45c7d150d]. As with (6)(d), the delay must be reasonable and dual HB is restricted to a maximum of 4 weeks. However, under (6)(e), the delay [u:f45c7d150d]must[/u:f45c7d150d] also have been [b:f45c7d150d]necessary in order to adapt the dwelling to meet the disablement needs of that person or any member of his family[/b:f45c7d150d].

    Hope the above helps.

    #9958
    kareena2b
    Participant

    Kevin-bit lost now-are you saying a person waiting for a Social fund loan to provide themselves with much needed furniture or removal costs,cannot claim HB for their new property??

    #9959
    Kevin D
    Participant

    [quote:7011832914]are you saying a person waiting for a Social fund loan to provide themselves with much needed furniture or removal costs,cannot claim HB for their new property??[/quote:7011832914]

    Where [b:7011832914]HBR 7(6)([u:7011832914]e[/u:7011832914])[/b:7011832914] is the provision in question, HB cannot be awarded on 2-homes unless the delay was [b:7011832914]necessary in order to adapt the dwelling to meet the disablement needs of that person or any member of his family[/b:7011832914]. That requirement MUST be satisfied.

    If the move was delayed pending the outcome of a social fund loan (in cases where HBR 7(6)(e) is relied on), it doesn’t matter. The clmt must still fulfill the requirement relating to adapting the dwelling for the disablement needs of the clmt, or a member of his family.

    Does that clarify?

    #9960
    holcat
    Participant

    Kevin – I dont follow your last posting. Surely 8(c) provides three scenarios where benefit can be paid for a period prior to a claimant moving in, none of which are dependant on the others being fulfilled.

    #9961
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Cathy,

    Your analysis is correct for SINGLE liability cases. However, where there is [b:690b3ffca7]DUAL[/b:690b3ffca7] liability (i.e. two homes), [b:690b3ffca7]HBR 7(8 )(c)[u:690b3ffca7](i)[/u:690b3ffca7][/b:690b3ffca7] [b:690b3ffca7]MUST[/b:690b3ffca7] be satisfied in [b:690b3ffca7]ALL[/b:690b3ffca7] cases where [b:690b3ffca7]HBR 7(6)(e)[/b:690b3ffca7] is at issue.

    [b:690b3ffca7]HBR 7[/b:690b3ffca7]: new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2/hbregs06/007_06.shtml

    Regards

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.