Client separated from partner, went into hospital with MH problems, obtained new LA tenancy, but due to delay in discharge could not take up occupancy until several weeks after start of the tenancy. Zebedee s3.4 refers to RH 9/05 which would allow HB from start of the tenancy, but one of my colleagues has a recollection of this decision being reversed by another. Any further info please?

Hi Brian

R(H) 9/05 was never reversed by the Court of Appeal and is therefore still good law. There maybe earlier or later unreported decisions which conflict but the reported one should take preference. There maybe a later reported decision which conflicts. I'm not aware of one but if there is one then I'm sure that someone will let us know.

Regards
Paul

I'm also unaware of any decision that reversed R(H) 9/05. However, it may be worth bearing in mind the specific circumstances of that case. The decision does not allow HB "from the start of the tenancy", rather it placed a particular interpretation on the regulation (reg 7 (16) of the HB regs) that allows payment during periods of temporary absence from the home a claimant "normally occupies". Though the claimant was unable to move in to her home at the start of her tenancy due to being in hospital, she was taken to have normally occupied it from that date because her family had moved all her furniture and possession in. Whether R(H) 9/05 might allow payment in circumstances where a flat was sitting entirely empty is doubtful.....

I'm also unaware of any reversal of R(H) 9/05.

However, I agree with past caring's caution - the crux is occupancy.

Regards
Kevin

Regulation 8(c)(iii) allows you to treat a claimant as occupying the home for 4 weeks immediately prior to the date they occupied if they became liable for rent whilst in hospital.

It may only be necessary to consider whether R(H) 9/05 applies if the period in question is in excess of 4 weeks.