Dear all,

I have been assisting a lady as a part of possession proceedings. She was on HB till June 06 at which time it was stopped. She has been using heroin and alcohol for many years. She is presently on heroin detox.

She moved in to a property on a secure tenancy over two years ago. She has been struggling with many issues for many years. When she moved in she did not have the gas or electric put on.

The gas heating system including boiler and pipework were removed from the property in a robbery. The lady had problems with reporting this to the police (i.e. they probably thought she had taken it). Therefore the gas has never been on.

It appears that the electricity was also never put on due to a combination of her inability to deal with things and the suppliers ineptitude. Subsequently no electric.

The lady has significant mental health problems that have included many suicide attempts and self harming. There have been several sections under the Mental Health Act.

When tenancy support got involved they went to the propery and most of the windows were smashed and boarded up. The lady was living in one room using candles for light. The property was really damp and she was suffering with a serious chest infection and the worry of losing the house is exacerbating the selfharm.

She has been totally unable to manage her affairs and we have supportive medical and other expert eviudence to this affect. The HB stopped when there was a change in her circs from IS to ICB when the children went into some form of long term care back in June 06.

I have no doubt this is a slam dunk case for a backdate. However, the Landlord (bless them) told HB they did not believe that she was living there. HB therefore have now refused to accept she lives at the property.

The landlord helped the lady complete a HB application in March 07 which was eventually cancelled. HB has said if we can get evidence they will reopen the matter and go back to the March claim thereby getting a backdate to June 07.

They have now concluded that they do not believe that she is living there as we cannot produce a gas or electric bill. We sent all the correspondance we could muster - she had quite a bit of unopened mail.

They have now said that as some of the letters were debt collection letters is proof she isnt living there. In addition that as she was living without gas / electric the fact she did not get a supply also proved this - despite significant medical and expert evidence to say she was not coping and dealing with her affairs.

DOH - get the picture.

Anyhow I typically deal with possession proceeding and housing but get occassional HB matters now that all our local welfare rights suppliers are being wound down due to funding cuts.

I am about to draft an appeal and was wondering if any of you HB expert types could point me in the right direction of any cases / guidance that might be of assistance.

Regards and thanks in anticipation.

Brian

R(I) 1/51 is the early decision regarding uncorroborated evidence. see also CH/5088/2002. Your client's evidence isn't uncorroborated, you have significant supportive evidence, but it soes sound as if no weight whatsoever has been given to her evidence, in favour of demands for corroboration/verification which she cannot possibly provide. it is part of her case that she was living in the property, in some squalor, without utilities, and it is not logical for the Authority to say that lack of utility bills proves that she wasn't living there.

the LA has to determine the claim on the balance of probability. they cannot rely on the landlord's belief that she wasn't living there, when no reasons/evidence for that belief are given. i haven't picked up that there is any real evidence that your client wasn't living in the property. usually, a person is able to provide supporting evidence for their claim, but it isn't always possible when unusual or exceptional circumstances apply, and if the only evidence available is the claimant's own statement, it should be considered properly. it can't simply be disregarded because she isn't living like a 'normal' person or is a heroin addict.

providing your client has made a statement explaining the circumstances under which she lived in the property, and of her problems (or provided on her behalf if she isn't capable), her evidence has to be addressed. it is understandable that a doubt may have arisen, but not understandable why they are not satisfied that she lived there, after an explanation has been provided which is supported by expert evidence, and is credible.

...and how the hell does some unopened "debt collection" letters 'prove' she wasn't living there??

This just reinforces jj's point that, for no good reason at all, the LA has just chosen to give all the weight to the evidence that she doesn't live there (and granted there is some) and none to the evidence that she does.

Is this all in the past, or is she still living there? If yes, they could go and visit her - couldn't they?

What about neighbours? Are there any who could give supporting evidence?

Thanks for the information.

Regards

Brian

Had to think first if I should reply or not because I know the critiscism I am going to get, but only trying to help.......

At my previous local authority, being new to LA's having come from DWP, I was told that if a property was uninhabitable in the eyes of the environmental health officer then benefit could not be paid - dead straightforward, and in the eyes of the EHO no gas or electric meant he would always treat the property as uninhabitable.
Now if this was just a local decision I do not know. I also have no idea where it came from or if there are even any regs to cover such stuff, just thought it was worth mentioning in case the LA you are dealing with are using the same general 'ruling'.
Hope this helps ...........

Cheers IP will bear it in mind.

Brian

Thanks to all the info I received a letter from HB to say they have accepted the lady was resident without the need to go to tribunal.

You are all my hero's

Regrads

Brian.