Currently have a case where we're seeking HB on two properties due to work being carried out due to disabilities, i.e reg 7(6).

LA assert that cl must have moved permanently before this can kick in, (cl having moved temporarily while work's carried out) but I can find no authority for this.


Before a tribunal pulls a Comm'rs decision on me at a hearing... Does anyone know whether there's any authority for their assertion, or should I simly win?

It might not be quite as straightforward as you think.
Reg 7(6)(d) only applies to cases where a claimant has moved to a “new dwelling occupied as the home”.

Reg 7(4), although not directly applicable in your client's case, looks at cases where people have moved in to temporary accommodation due to essential repairs and talks about payments on “the dwelling which he normally occupies as his home or the temporary accommodation”. The clear suggestion being that such temporary accommodation is not considered to be the dwelling normally occupied as the home.

This is the DWPs view,.
Unavoidable overlap of liability
3.670 This provision

only applies when the claimant makes a permanent move from one home to another, and
HB Reg 7 & (SPC) 7

must only be used in exceptional circumstances; people generally plan their move in advance and will normally be able to avoid having dual liabilities
must be considered before making a decision on entitlement to benefit
See Commissioner Jacobs’ decision, CH4546/2002, 29 October 2003

3.671 When a claimant has moved into a new home before giving up the tenancy on the old home (not a temporary home as in Temporary absence from home earlier in this chapter) you may consider that liability for payments on both the old and new homes could not reasonably have been avoided. In this instance, HB can be paid for both homes, but for the former home can be paid for a maximum period of four weeks only, even if dual liability exceeds that period. If the four weeks ends before that liability stops, there will be no entitlement to benefit for the remainder of the liability.

I agree with Jeff's analysis. In my view, the legislation he refers to IS the authority to support the LA's assertion.

If you take a look at HBR 7(6)(d), it specifically excludes the two-homes provision where HBR 7(4) applies.

Thinking ahead, even if you argue that the repairs are not "essential", thereby rendering HBR 7(4) irrelevant, Jeff's observation about the new dwelling being "occupied as the home" will, in my view, prevent your client from (lawfully) getting HB on 2-homes.

Not the answer you wanted, but I think it is correct.

Fri 28-Mar-08 03:37 PM by Anselmo

I have had some experience in this sort of situation before and I can confirm that the decision reached was as the previous two posts described.

What was really unfortunate in that case was the customer had been advised by the LA before anything happened that he would be able to get HB on both properties, only for them to check the regs once he actually did it and found out they had misadvised him!