Hi, I was wondering if any one can help!

I have a client that went into hospital on 1/07/07 after an assault. He started receiving SSP and became enitlted to HB. He was preivously working and did not qualify for HB. He applied for HB whilst in hospital.

He stayed in hospital for 3 weeks then moved in with his parents to recover. He is still living with his parents but returned to hospital for 3 weeks in September (but for a different problem).

He intends to move back to his property in the next week or so.

The problem is that his HB claim has been rejected because he was not enitlted to claim HB before going into hospital and because he is not resident at the property.

I can't find anything to suggest that you can't make a new claim whilst absent from your property. But even if he was eligble to claim I am unsure if he would fit into the 52 wks absent rules as he was only in hospital for two seperate periods of the 6 weeks.

The myth that you cannot start a claim for HB whilst being temporarily absent from your home seems as persistent and pervasive among LA's as ever!

You are quite right that there is nothing in the regs to prevent this, and why would there be? People's absence from home and the need to claim benefits are often linked together (as in this case), but still some LA's appear to think that the temp absence provisions can only be used if the absence occurs during a HB claim already made and in payment. The only real proviso is that the person must have lived in the property before the absence (you can't get HB on a place you've never occupied), but they don't have to have been claiming before the absence.

You may have a problem with the period when the client was living with his parents rather than being in hospital, but it would seem likely that he could be said to be receiving medically approved care and convalescence, which would keep him on the 52-week limit. If the hospital stated that he should not return to live on his own but should be with some people to look after him, that ought to fit the bill (though it probably needs to be in writing). Aside from that, if he is still liable for rent on the property in question and it has not been let to anyone else and he has a clear intention to return, he ought to be entitled.

The LA might reasonably want some evidence that he did live in the place before he was absent (assuming they don't already have it - from Ctax records for example).