I have a client who is being debited a NDD on the basis that her son receives his post there. ( He signs on for JSA)He has not lived there for a long time, but HB continue to apply as she is not able to provide a forwarding address, as he moves around. Is there any further challenge that could be made? Or would it have to go to a revision or appeal?

Depends where it's currently at. Does the LA think a deduction is justified simply because he is receiving post there? Or is this simply evidence to them that he is living there? Has a decision that he is still living there been made?

I would suggest initially seeking a statement of reasons for the continuing deduction, to find out why the LA thinks a deduction is justified. I would say that not having a forwarding address is NOT sufficient basis for deciding that a person is still living in the property. What if the claimant does not know the address, or (as in this case) there is no forwarding address, or frankly, that the claimant just does not think it's any of the LA's business?

Thanks for this

You may find the following useful:

CH/4004/2004 - which helps define the meaning of 'normally resides'. In this case a person who lived with the claimant for over 2 months was found not to be 'normally residing' with the claimant (and hence not a non-dependant) even though they had nowhere else to live.

CH/48/2006 - which says that the LA should not just make the maximum NDD in cases where the claimant does not supply proof of their non dependant's earnings. Instead, the deduction must be based on an adverse inference 'based in some sense of reality'.

CIS/14850/1996 - which says that ‘normal residence’ suggests a degree of permanence.

thanks for this

If the son is under 25 & getting JSA (income Based) there should be no deduction anyway.

If they do decide he is there, maybe look at a second adult rebate if he's receiving JSA?