two homes/one dwelling

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
  • #23426

    any views guys?
    here’s the scenario: a couple with nine children have received HB/CTB on their new three bed home for 6mths. last month they knocked a doorway through to the property behind theirs and applied for what they termed benefit on two homes. As the landlords for the two properties were different and they hadn’t been placed in the accommodation by the “Housing Authority”, Hb on the new property was turned down by assessor. they appealed.
    I upheld decision. However in preparing the submission, a decision was taken by our team to visit this property and find out exactly what we are dealing with. (It was during the visit that we discovered that a doorway had been knocked through the back wall of the two properties).
    They admitted that they hadnt got permision from anyone to knock through the two properties and so the question now is, how do we treat the families accommodation?
    Secretary of state for work and pensions v miah is persuasive for Hb and not ctb ( there’s no ctb on two homes anyway).
    Under the SSAA 1992 the Housing Authority refers to the local authority etc and not to private landlords ( obviously)
    Council tax are reluctant to reband this because it would mean renumbering the whole block.
    Go on guys!!! lets have some views please.


    It’s the landlords’ views I’d like to know about 😯

    Anyway Fran, as I see it your claimants are stuck unless and until your CT section re-lists the property as one and I can’t see how they could do that. Does the landlord of property #2 even know they’ve moved into his house?

    Darren W

    I agree with Nicky, they are two propities until your Council Tax department say otherwise.

    Kevin D

    [quote:448059950f]I agree with Nicky, they are two propities until your Council Tax department say otherwise.[/quote:448059950f]

    Much as this may well be the “common-sense” approach, I’m not convinced it [u:448059950f]necessarily[/u:448059950f] stands that a “dwelling” for HB purposes must follow the lead from CTAX. The following CDs may be of particular interest:




    Is this only a Council Tax Benefit query – are you treating the homes as a single dwelling for HB and carrying out a single combined HB assessment?

    If this is just a CTB issue, then on the face of it a resident who is liable Council Tax can claim CTB. Is the situation here that your CT section is regarding each person as resident in his/her own separate dwelling and so Mr is liable for tax on one and Ms is liable on the other?

    If that is the case, then in theory each of them can claim CTB as a single person. The problem is, you believe they are living as a couple and you have treated them that way for HB. Section 134 of the Conts and Bens Sct says that two members of the same “family” cannot both claim the same income-related benefit. This is obviously a necessary piece of machinery to prevent everyone receiving double-rate benefit since either member of a couple could separately satisfy the conditions for IS, HB and CTB – s134 is closing that loophole. If you have a couple paying £100 a week rent for a one-bed flat, s134 prevents them both claiming and getting £200 a week of benefit.

    I don’t think s134 is supposed to apply to a case like this though. The only way ropund it is to say that in the context of the CTB claim they are not members of the same “family” and to chop up the household and means-test as best you can. I think it would be very unjust to apply s134 – it really isn’t intended for this situation.

    But can your computer accept that the same people are a family for HB and not for CTB?


    This is the case I am now preparing to submit to the Appeals Service.

    The claimant’s appear to have done their homework. They originally requested that the authority pay HB on both properties, but in recent correspondence received, they have stated that they are using both properties as ‘one dwelling’.

    Wasn’t sure whether to submit anyway as a test case to see if the ‘miah’ case was binding on HB and CTB cases.

    There is provision in the regs for HB to be paid in such circumstances, but it does stipulate that they must have been housed in the second property by a ‘Housing Authority’.

    I carried out the visit to the property, and asked the claimant whether they had looked for other larger properties, but he stated that they needed a quick solution because his partner was suffering from severe depression (to be expected really having to cope with 9 children in a 3 bedroom flat).

    They were using their initial property to live in during the day i.e for meals etc, but before a doorway was knocked through the dividing wall, Mrs would sleep in the first property with the younger children, and Mr would go next door to sleep with the older children.

    Any suggestions on whether to pay or not would be greatly appreciated.


    In Secretary of State v Miah [R(JSA)9/03] it was held that two three-bedroomed houses in the same street, separated from each other by two other houses constituted one dwelling.

    In R(SB)10/89 two units 600 yards apart were similarly held to be one dwellling and in CIS/299/1992 a bugalow and an adjoining caravan were also held to be one dwelling.

    I dont thnk an arbitary decision by CTAX has much bearing on this, it is the domestic arrangements of the family that should carry the most weight. Those arrangements point to there being one dwelling.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.