Size criteria and shared custody

Excellent article by HB Anorak…

http://www.hbanorak.co.uk/downloads/shared_custody_analysis.pdf

This is a brilliant analysis.  On the human rights issues generally, I agree that there is still an argument to be had there. I think the minority comments by Lady Hale in the benefit cap case give hope to any appeal on damage to the child. I would like to find a flaw in the ” occupying as their home” line of thinking but am not sure that we can.  I would only say that Reg 7 was originally intended to define who was occupying for the purposes of claiming HB and was only through case law extended to define who else was an occupier as well.  And Regs 19 to 21 are a reflection of the Social Security legislation all to do with calculating Applicable Amounts by identifying who is responsible for a child, and only indirectly to do with occupying. 

It seems to me also there is a bit of an overlap between the separate issues of occupying two places as a home and the issue of double funding. How would Reg 7 pan out if a lodger with a partner and child in his/her home area takes a room in a claimant’s house in the area where s/he works?  No claims are made by the lodger himself, either in the home area or in the place where he works for Housing Benefit.  However, regardless of whether he chooses to make a claim, for benefit purposes his family is definitely the home family. So long as he is not actually claiming any HB at home, for bedroom tax purposes I think the person letting the room would be allowed to have him there.

Anyway, food for thought.  Ruth