Client is 78 years old and in receipt of Pension Credit. She signed up for tenancy 10/12/2007 and HB Office received HB application 19/12/2007. However due to partners death, client didn't move into the tenancy until 10/01/2008. HB have said that client isn't entitled to HB until the Monday following the date she moved into property which is 14/01/2008. However after reading HB Reg 76 and PC Reg 57 I would like to ask if this is correct or not. Not sure if I'm interpretting the Regulations correctly or not.

I'm undecided... What's your interpretation?

I beleive that she should be entitled from the date that she moved into the property which was 10/01/2008?

Tue 15-Apr-08 02:57 PM by Tony Bowman

How did you get there?

I'm having difficulties because I can't see how reg 57 applies at all. Sub para 2 doesn't apply becuase the liability didn't arise for the first time during the week the claim was received. Sub para 2 allows the claim to be paid from the beginning of the liability where the liability arises, for the first time, in the week of the claim.

Para 1 sets out the usual rule that entitlement starts the week after the claim is received. But I'm struggling with it because it seems to assume that the liability already exists and has, as a starting point, the date of claim.

I suppose, since the claimant wasn't in occupation, there is simply no entitlement from the date of 1st claim so, in theory at least, the claimant would have to make a second claim at the point of moving in. But in that case, para 1 of reg 57 would apply meaning the LA were correct (I still don't see any application sub para 2).

Have you checked if the claimants accommodation is any of those listed in sub para 3, which would bring in sub para 2?

Have you checked the 'advance claim' rules? See CPAG handbook (07/08) page 193 (moving home) (reg 7(8) HB regs). This would fit in with my interpretation of reg 57, but aside from the required two claims, there are other conditions that must be met.

Maybe others could offer more...?

Tony

I think I agree with Tony and the LA in question. The person became liable for rent for the first time BEFORE the benefit week in which they actually moved in, which would seem to rule out the application of para 2 of Reg 76. Liability for rent and actual occupation go together.

It seems (and I admit to being slightly unsure on the point) that the regs do not properly cater for people who take on a liability but then move in later. From what I can see, these persons can never get benefit for any of the first week in which they live in the property - unless they fall into one of those very defined groups that can get benefit for a period prior to occupation.

Otherwise you actually have to become liable, move in and claim - all in the same week!

I also think the LA is correct.

See R(H)4/04 - aka Sec of State v ROBINSON & Sunderland CC (2004) EWCA Civ 342